jeffy comments

It's not just AI tools, it's everything. People should just assume that everything they say and do is being monitored. It is apparently necessary for them to know every nook and cranny of eveyone's psyhe. Surveillance capitalism is just as bad as communism.

"an agreement from Iran not to stop development of nuclear weapons conditioned on Israel's denuclearization"

This should obviously read "an agreement from Iran to stop development of nuclear weapons conditioned on Israel's denuclearization" or "an agreement from Iran not to development of nuclear weapons conditioned on Israel's denuclearization." If the staff could please edit, it would be appreciated.

englisc aspyrgend Today 08:24 am JST

Lets not forget the danger of such an unhinged regime that believes whatever it does is the will of Allah and they will receive their reward in heaven, a mass form of the suicide bomber mentality, being armed with nuclear weapons.

Lets not forget that Israel is just as unhinged, its very existence predicated on the fanatical Jewish belief that the Jewish people are entitled to a particular parcel of land by God who long ago gave them his blessing to slaughter the existing Canaanite inhabitants. And this nation state has had nuclear weapons since the last century. Did you ever think that might worry the neighboring countries?

Israel didn’t launch an indiscriminate attack on civilians unlike Iran’s proxies, but primarily a precisely targeted strike on their nuclear production facilities.

Really?

During the foundational events of the Nakba in 1948, approximately half of Palestine's predominantly Arab population, or around 750,000 people, were expelled from their homes or made to flee through various violent means, at first by Zionist paramilitaries, and after the establishment of the State of Israel, by its military. Dozens of massacres targeted Palestinian Arabs and over 500 Arab-majority towns, villages, and urban neighborhoods were depopulated. Many of the settlements were either completely destroyed or repopulated by Jews and given new Hebrew names. Israel employed biological warfare against Palestinians by poisoning village wells. By the end of the war, 78% of the total land area of the former Mandatory Palestine was controlled by Israel.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Do you think history only started on October 7?

englisc aspyrgend Today 08:24 am JST

Mayhap the strike would have been unnecessary if the nuclear agreement previously in place had still been in effect but the orange buffoon unilaterally destroyed that.

I say the tension should be brought down by denuclearizing Israel while getting an agreement from Iran not to stop development of nuclear weapons conditioned on Israel's denuclearization—a balanced solution in the interest of peace.

englisc aspyrgend Today 08:24 am JST

I swear there is a Village somewhere missing it’s idiot!

Perhaps in Gaza, killed by Israel’s own indiscriminate bombing.

At any rate, good on Japan for condemning Israel's actions.

“Nuclear weapons for me, but none for thee,” so declares the state of Israel—a nation state that only exists because England enabled the fanatical Jewish religious belief found in ancient Jewish religious books that God had empowered the people of Israel to seize the land and exterminate the existing Canaanite nations that were already living there. It is this fanatical belief, this religious sense of entitlement to the land which obstinately remains no matter how many times they themselves are defeated, which prevents more peaceful solutions from consideration—such as moving the world Jewish population to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia. The Jewish people simply MUST have that particular parcel of land to substantiate their religious books. It is this which is working in the background of the historical events we are witnessing. Jewish actions are no less fanatical than Muslims. I therefore find it troubling to see such a fanatical state in possession of nuclear weapons. I mean, what happens when that same state seeks to expand its borders based on where Abraham walked or the territory that king David ruled? Jewish religion is an expressly religio-political belief system which has implications not only for the Middle East, but the world as a whole.

The Israeli narrative which likes to talk as if history started on October 7 obviously leaves out much from the discussion. For example,

During the foundational events of the Nakba in 1948, approximately half of Palestine's predominantly Arab population, or around 750,000 people, were expelled from their homes or made to flee through various violent means, at first by Zionist paramilitaries, and after the establishment of the State of Israel, by its military. Dozens of massacres targeted Palestinian Arabs and over 500 Arab-majority towns, villages, and urban neighborhoods were depopulated. Many of the settlements were either completely destroyed or repopulated by Jews and given new Hebrew names. Israel employed biological warfare against Palestinians by poisoning village wells. By the end of the war, 78% of the total land area of the former Mandatory Palestine was controlled by Israel.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Making Israel out to be the level headed and reasonable party in the conflict is simply wrong. There is fanaticism on all sides.

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California.

And what happened to this proposition? The voters approved it 58.93% to 41.07%. But the law was deemed unconstitutional in federal district court by judge Mariana Pfaelzer, put in by Jimmy Carter, who said,

California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits.

This was later followed up in 2017 with California Senate Bill 54 which “is designed to prevent local law enforcement agencies from detaining undocumented immigrants who are eligible for deportation by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for violating immigration laws except in cases where the undocumented immigrants have been convicted of serious or violent felonies, or of misdemeanors that can be classified as such felonies.” So California makes it rather explicit that it will not work to enforce federal immigration laws in a normative manner. It is therefore necessary for federal authorities to take more aggressive action in California since the state will not assist in enforcing the immigration laws of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill54(2017)

I am a native of California. But I do not agree with California ignoring federal immigration laws and giving illegal immigrants privileges, such as drivers licenses and access to government services. These people are committing a criminal act by being in the country illegally. It is not simply a matter that they forgot to pick up some documents. They are rightly called “illegal.” They are not to be rewarded for their illegal residency which is disrespectful to those immigrants who followed legal procedure to reside in the country legally. This is also not “racism,” as much as the enablers of illegal immigration want it to be to refocus the discussion away from the illegality of the residency of these people.

bass4funk Today 02:52 pm JST

What should happen in your opinion from here on out?

Well one can start by denuclearizing Israel. But the Israeli religious fanatics will not allow that most definitely.

bass4funk Today 02:30 pm JST

what does that have to do with making sure that Iran doesn’t obtain nukes? It’s not going to happen, it won’t be allowed, bottom line.

I was responding to your statement about Iran currently acting out of "cancerous fanaticism." I have explained that Israel as a nation state only exists due to the enabling of the fanatic religious belief of the Jewish people. You here switch the subject to nuclear weapons. Yes, I do find a nuclear Iran worrisome. But if, as I have already explained, the existence of Israel as a nation state itself is predicated on fanatical religious belief, how should one view Israel having nuclear weapons? "Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. Estimates of Israel's stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel). Why would I be concerned about Iranian nuclear weapons without being concerned first about Israeli nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons which they have had from the last century. Might that, not wacky Islamicism, be the reason Iran seeks nuclear weapons?

bass4funk Today 02:13 pm JST

it has nothing to do with the current and the moment and the fact that the mullahs want to wipe the Jewish nation off the face of the earth.

The Iranian complaint about Israel in the area is directly tied to Jewish insistence that their homeland must be on that particular parcel of land because their ancient religious books say that their ancestors were given that land by God who empowered them to slaughter the existing Cannanite nations. If the English had not given validity to this religious belief and double-dealed with both the Arabs and the Jews, but recognized that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were toppled more than 2,000 years ago so that no legitimate claim could be made, we would not be here. So the religious convictions of the Jewish people have everything to do with the situation.

JJE Today 10:03 am JST

Knew this was coming.

You should have knew this was coming since Netanyahu spoke all those years ago about how Iran was just around the corner from creating nuclear weapons. He has been itching at it for a long time.

Mr KiplingToday 10:16 am JST

The sooner the failed "Israel experiment" is ended the better. Move the Jews back to their countries of origin, Russia, Poland, Ukraine etc.

A better solution would be to move the Jewish people of all countries to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia which was especially created for Jewish people as a homeland. But the Jewish people preferred to create a homeland with violence and displace other people because their ancient religious books said that their God had given that particular parcel of land to them. So here we are.

Bass4funk Today 01:30 pm JST

I pray that with this operation it will be a start that the people will rise up and take it from the crazy religious mullahs, topple it and rid themselves from this cancerous fanaticism

You would not have had to pray for such things if American and England did not act orchestrate a coup against Iran’s prior democratically elected government in 1953 to reinstate the unpopular and dictatorial Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It was the resistance to Pahlavi’s government which led Iran down the path to the place it is now.

You speak about the fanaticism of Muslim believers in Iran, but fail to note the fanaticism of Jewish believers which has literally caused problems in multiple nations for more than two millennium. You should read about the history of the Jewish nation under the Romans and compare it to their closet neighbors, the Samaritans. Although both communities share the same common core religious tradition, the Jewish nation continually revolted, unlike the Samaritans, to such a degree that the Romans destroyed their temple in much the same way as the Hasmoneans had destroyed the Samaritan temple 200 years prior. The same Hasmoneans who are held up by the Jewish people as heroes to this day, just as those Zealots who died Masada in the Judean-Roman war are. One person’s terrorist and zealot is another person’s freedom fighter and faithful believer. I personally find the zealotry of Muslims and Jews distasteful and harmful to the world.

SwissToni Today 05:30 pm JST

Everybody, in democratic states including Japan, has a right to privacy and dignity.

While I agree with this in theory, in practice it is evident that such is not the case. At least since the Snowden leaks people should realize that even democratic states do not respect the right to privacy. But I see this from another angle. Here we are talking about racial profiling, assuming that someone may be a potential criminal based on their race. Yet it is a point of law that those accused of a crime are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Now if so for those who are accused, how much more so for those who are not accused? And yet indiscriminate mass surveillance of the population, such as was revealed in the Snowden leaks showed, assumes the guilt of the entire population. This is not only against the right to privacy, but also conflicts with the legal presumption of innocence. It is not for the people to continually prove they are not guilty to authorities, it is for authorities to prove some wrong doing by some criminal among the people. Yes, this puts a burden on the authorities, rightfully so, since it is intended to prevent them from overstepping. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Thus the words of Sir William Blackstone. But that is just more "white" culture for you.

I think we should remember that, according to the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), the idea of individualism is one of the "aspects & assumptions of whiteness & white culture in the United States" (https://ia903202.us.archive.org/32/items/whiteness-chart-smithsonian-nmaahc-washington-d.-c./Whiteness%20chart%20Smithsonian%20NMAAHC%20Washington%20D.C..png). Therefore, the argument against racial profiling in Japan is actually promoting "white" culture of a foreign country. Now I am perfectly okay with this, but perhaps that may just be my inclination to cultural imperialism due to being "white." But it becomes "problematic" to those who, seeking to fight against such influence, resort to the very notions they so hate. Might it not be better to say that good ideas are good based on their own merit regardless of who originates them? Perhaps like people, ideas should not be racially profiled. So what shall it be? Do we consider individuals apart from the immutable characteristic of race or do we make race an inextricable factor in determining who individuals are?

It is quite terrible to be prejudged based on an immutable characteristic such as race rather than to be considered on an individual basis, isn't it? I mean, in university courses there is something called "whiteness" studies which attempt to describe all "white" people with particular group characteristics. These courses then place at the feet of all individuals of the group collective responsibility for any and all acts that someone of the group may have committed. I think it was better when "color blindness" was promoted, but then we were all told that such was actually racism since one's racial group is an inherent part of an individual's identity. If such is indeed the case, then why is racial profiling wrong?

Simon Foston Today 10:12 am JST

Tom Baker started all that off when he hinted his successor might be female, but he wasn't serious about it.

Indeed, he too was joking.

Back in 1980, when Tom Baker had announced he was leaving the role of the Fourth Doctor, the actor told assembled journalists:

   "I wish my successor, whoever he or she might be, the best of luck."

Though Baker was indeed jesting at this point, then producer John Nathan-Turner ran with this in the media to provoke press interest.

— https://www.doctorwho.tv/news-and-features/the-changing-genders-in-and-of-doctor-who

So presenting the idea seriously started with John Nathan-Turner in order to stir up publicity for the show.

It is also known that Sydney Newman in 1986 suggested that the seventh Doctor should be a woman in a pitch letter to Michael Grade. The pertinent quote is:

“At a later stage Doctor Who should be metamorphosed into a woman. Don’t you agree that this is considerably more worthy of the BBC than Doctor Who’s presently largely socially valueless, escapist schlock?”

“This requires some considerable thought – mainly because I want to avoid a flashy, Hollywood Wonder Woman, because this kind of heroine with no flaws is a bore.”

— https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/8052694/How-Doctor-Who-nearly-became-the-Time-Lady.html

But as history shows the BBC at the time did not take up Newman’s idea. Note his criticism of the show then as “largely socially valueless.” It therefore appears to me that the idea of having the Doctor become a women was already tied to social activism even way back in 1986.

So the decision is about pushing social agendas and changing people’s consciousnesses. However, the Doctor was established as a male for decades before these ideas were floated. The character should have remained so. And we see the social messaging angle right at the end of the same Telegraph article:

The UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology yesterday called on the BBC to finally realise Mr Newman's vision and ensure that the current Doctor, Matt Smith, is succeeded by a woman.

Jane Butcher, the centre's assistant director, said: "Having a high-profile TV character such as Doctor Who being played by a female would raise the profile of women in science and would help convince young women that they can make an important contribution, both as scientists and as leaders."

But if we were simply interested in “convinc[ing] young women that they can make an important contribution, both as scientists and as leaders,” why is it necessary to change the gender of the Doctor to do this? A much more respectful way this could have been done would have been to create a show based on the adventures of Clara and Ashildr (Me) after the episode Hell Bent. That series could have followed the exact same format as Doctor Who, they both now freely going about the universe in a new Tardis, but with an all female cast if they had wanted. A clean slate to tell the stories they wanted, unencumbered by decades of established character. But no. And let’s not forget that they already had The Sarah Jane Adventures. Who better a companion than Sarah Jane? But Sarah Jane was apparently not smart enough or strong enough to convince young girls. Ever more girl power was necessary.

I did not care that Ellen Ripley in the Alien films was a woman.

I did not care that Elizabeth Shaw in Prometheus was a woman.

I did not care that Daniels in Alien: Covenant was a woman.

I did not care that Sarah Connor in the Terminator films was a woman.

I did not care that Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games films was a woman.

I did not care that Lara Croft in Tomb Raider films was a woman.

I did not care that Alice in Resident Evil films was a woman.

I do not care that Juliette Nichols in Silo was a woman.

These were original female characters in mostly interesting stories. But I do care that someone decided to make the Doctor into a woman. That was jumping the shark. This was only to be outdone by jumping the whale with the "Doctor" that followed. But these things were done on purpose. Just like with so many other properties.

Perhaps the funniest thing about the 1999 parody episode The Curse of Fatal Death, written by Steven Moffat by the way, is the joke about the Doctor regenerating into a woman (Joanna Lumley). Incredibly, this joke was adopted into the actual series with the expectation that viewers take the idea seriously. It is little wonder why the series is doing so terribly.

Any real Doctor Who fan knows that Time Lords, the alien race to which the Doctor belongs, only have thirteen lives. This means they may only regenerate twelve times.

“all thirteen”

https://youtu.be/0e71KWwE5Fk

“the very first time that I, we, regenerated”

https://youtu.be/5eVj_wrq8Kc

These are the actors who have played the thirteen lives of the Doctor:

First Doctor –    William Hartnell (1963–1966)

Second Doctor – Patrick Troughton (1966–1969)

Third Doctor – Jon Pertwee (1970–1974)

Fourth Doctor – Tom Baker (1974–1981)

Fifth Doctor – Peter Davison (1982–1984)

Sixth Doctor – Colin Baker (1984–1986)

Seventh Doctor – Sylvester McCoy (1987–1996)

Eighth Doctor – Paul McGann (1996)

Ninth Doctor – John Hurt (2013)

Tenth Doctor – Christopher Eccleston (2005)

Eleventh Doctor – David Tennant (2005–2010, 2023)

Twelfth Doctor – Matt Smith (2010–2013)

Thirteenth Doctor – Peter Capaldi (2014–2017)

It is evident per this article that there is a show out there purporting to be Doctor Who, but such is not the case. Perhaps that is why that show has the lowest ratings in the entire history of the show…

https://youtu.be/rx8ppz3RJ2I

AntiquesavingToday 08:33 am JST

Something is clearly wrong with that place!

What’s wrong with it Antique? I mean, the government was worried about people’s safety and so passed a law to protect all the people! The government only makes laws when there is warrant for them, right?

From the article:

The city of Nagoya has even passed a municipal ordinance to that effect.

Is it wrong to force others to be considerate of others? Should those who find walking on escalators safe flaunt the law because they personally find it to lack a legitimate basis? Who are we to question the law?

virusrexToday 11:32 am JST

Its much better for people that can take the time, not for those that lose quite a lot as a consequence of those minutes/seconds.

And you know who else perceives their time to be valuable? People riding bicycles, among others. Maybe they should leave home earlier. But that idea is terrible if one is a commuter it seems…

virusrexToday 10:59 am JST

When people are making 2+ change of trains a day taking an extra minute in each station can mean losing quite a lot of time, so people will walk on the escalators. Or run on the stairs, which is the part that I see with some frequency causing falls and accidents.

And so why not make a law that could prevent those falls and accidents? I mean, in the context of cyclist accidents, there were 4,000+ accidents in 2024 which were simply due to cyclists losing their balance, even more than the combined accidents from cyclists hitting pedestrians! Something must be done the situation. A law mandating training wheels on all bicycles I say! The people must be protected from themselves…

I know a guy who often goes to Gyomu Super who will in the next year be forced to wait ten minutes on one street so that he can ride on the legally approved side of the street. Imagine how selfish that person would be to complain…

Antiquesaving Today 12:06 am JST

You do realise that there are far more rear end accidents with cars than head on collisions, so should cars now drive in the opposite direction of traffic?

I would think so given that cars are not only mandated by law to ride with the flow of traffic, but forced by the very design of the roadway to drive that way, whereas cyclists have greater freedom in that regard to ride with the flow of traffic or not. Now as far as I understand it, drivers involved in rear-end collisions with another vehicle are usually presumed to be at fault unless proved otherwise, e.g. the vehicle ahead stops inappropriately in the middle of traffic. Here what is required is safe driving distance and attention to the driver in front to ensure one stops on time to prevent a rear-end collision, not riding on the opposite side on the road in the middle of the lane which would no doubt lead to an accident with another vehicle. Is it your argument that motorists should be presumed to be at fault when their cars rear-ends a cyclist as in the case with cars?

But we are not talking about cars, but bicycles. The driver of a car rear-ended by another car is far less likely to sustain fatal injury than a cyclist on a bicycle. As you have said, cyclists should be cognizant of the fact that automobiles pose great danger to them. Accordingly, they should ride in a manner that provides them with the greatest safety. Now what is in question here is exactly what provides the cyclist, and others around them, the greatest safety. As the statistics indicate, the best course would to be out of the street altogether, riding on the sidewalk in the direction of the flow of traffic. If, however, cyclists are required by law to be off sidewalks and on the street, then the statistics suggests that the best course for them would be to ride against the flow of traffic, preferably as close to the curb as they can I would imagine so as to stay out of vehicle lanes as best they can. This is completely separate from running stop lights, not looking around for oncoming traffic at intersections when the light is green, and weaving in and out of vehicle lanes. I have already stated that I agree that such things are bad practices. The cyclist who does so will likely one day get a Darwin award. So where we disagree is on what is safest for cyclists with respect to their direction of riding in relation to the flow of traffic and the place where cycling should take place.

Addendum:

The last sentence should read:

There is greater risk of accident with a pedestrian going against the flow of traffic on the sidewalk than with the flow of traffic on the sidewalk.

Addendum:

Upon further inspection I see where things went wrong. The terminology got confused between the calculation and my presentation. What I presented was risk differential figures as if they were risk ratio. This is wrong. Let’s do it again:

There is a risk ratio of approximately 1.30 of accident with a pedestrian between cyclists traveling against the flow of traffic and those traveling with the flow of traffic. The risk ratio of approximately 1.30 suggests that cyclists traveling against the flow of traffic are about 1.3 times more likely to be involved in an accident with a pedestrian compared to those traveling with the flow of traffic.

There is risk ratio of approximately 1.21 between rear-end collision (= going with the flow) and a head-on collision (= going against the flow). The risk ratio of approximately 1.21 suggests that cyclists are about 1.21 times more likely to be involved in a rear-end collision than in a head-on collision.

There is a risk ratio of approximately 2.41 between overtaking accidents (= going with the flow) and accidents while passing each other (= going against the flow). The risk ratio of approximately 2.41 suggests that cyclists are about 2.41 times more likely to be involved in an accident while overtaking (going with the flow) compared to when passing each other (going against the flow).

So there is greater risk of accident with a vehicle going with the flow of traffic on the road than against the flow of traffic on the road. There is greater risk of accident with a pedestrian going with the flow of traffic on the sidewalk than against the flow of traffic on the sidewalk.

That username, though. Today 09:46 pm JST

It’s clear that far more cyclists ride with the flow of traffic, so naturally, they’ll be involved in more accidents overall.

It’s not clear to me, but it seems to be a reasonable deduction based on the assumption that Japanese are law abiding. Perhaps, but I know of no statistics which indicate the 1. the total population of cyclists in Japan, 2. the figures of those who always ride with the flow of traffic and, conversely, 3. the figures of those who always ride against the flow of traffic and, 4. those who ride sometimes with the flow of traffic and sometimes against the flow of traffic. We can assume based on anecdotal evidence, but such is unquantifiable.

But I’m curious—how was that 9.6 times figure calculated? Without context, it feels a bit off.

Asking ChatGPT:

The "9.6" figure mentioned in the argument is derived from the comparison of risks associated with two types of vehicle collisions that cyclists experience while riding in traffic: head-on collisions (正面衝突) and rear-end collisions (追突).

Calculation Steps:

Data Provided:

Head-on collisions: 914 accidents

Rear-end collisions: 1,107 accidents Total Accidents Involving Vehicles:

[

\text{Total Vehicle Accidents} = 914 + 1,107 = 2,021

]

Calculating Risk Percentages: Risk Percentage for Head-on Collisions:

[

\text{Risk Percentage (Head-on)} = \left( \frac{914}{2,021} \right) \times 100 \approx 45.2\%

]

Risk Percentage for Rear-end Collisions:

[

\text{Risk Percentage (Rear-end)} = \left( \frac{1,107}{2,021} \right) \times 100 \approx 54.8\%

]

Calculating the Risk Differential:

[

\text{Risk Differential} = \text{Risk Percentage (Rear-end)} - \text{Risk Percentage (Head-on)} = 54.8\% - 45.2\% = 9.6\%

]

Interpretation of the 9.6 Figure:

The "9.6" figure represents the risk differential between being involved in rear-end collisions compared to head-on collisions. Specifically, cyclists are 9.6% more likely to be involved in a rear-end collision than in a head-on collision, based on the accident data provided.

Accuracy of the Calculation:

The calculation itself is accurate based on the data provided (914 head-on collisions and 1,107 rear-end collisions). It correctly computes the percentages and the difference between those percentages.

So the calculation is head-on accidents (“going against the flow of traffic”) relative to rear-end accidents (“going with the flow of traffic”) The reason I mention these two types of accidents is because one can reasonably infer the direction of the cyclist relative to the vehicle. In the addendum I added overtaking (追越追抜時) and going past each other (すれ違い時) of these accidents likewise permit one to reasonably infer the direction of the cyclist relative to the vehicle. The risk differential between these are 41.4% as calculated by ChatGPT with the same method. Here too, going against the flow of traffic is evidently preferable.

Also, do we have reliable data on the severity of these accidents?

Such data might exist, but I do not have it. If you can direct me to it, I would be most obliged.

From what I understand, head-on collisions—which usually happen when riding against traffic—tend to be more dangerous because of impact speed and how cyclists absorb the crash, i.e. head first into a car's windshield. So even if they’re less frequent, they might result in more serious injuries or fatalities.

I would tend to think head-on collisions are indeed quite dangerous. But I can also imagine that being rear-ended on a bicycle by a car from behind might send the cyclist flying into cross traffic, crush the cyclist into a car in front of them, cause the cyclist to be run over by the rear-ending car, etc. But the statistics, at least as I have, do not link fatalities / serious injury / minor injury to the specific type of accident. Therefore I can only work on my assumption that bicycle collisions with a vehicle in the middle of the road stand a far greater chance of serious or fatal injury to the cyclist than bicycle collisions with a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The question which brought us here revolved around 1. going with the flow of traffic and 2. riding on sidewalks.

When talking about safety, shouldn’t we consider not just the number of crashes but how severe they are?

Indeed, but since I cannot directly link severity to type of accident, I can only assume that any bicycle collision with a vehicle in the middle of the road stands a far greater chance of serious or fatal injury to the cyclist relative to a bicycle collision with a pedestrian on the sidewalk. And, since the discussion is about “going with the flow” vs. “going against the flow” and “riding in the street” vs. “riding on the sidewalk,” I seek to know which strategies prove to be the safest for cyclists.

AntiquesavingToday 10:10 pm JST

jeffy Today 09:08 pm JST

Incidentally, it is intersection collisions (出会い頭), undoubtedly vehicles hitting cyclists crossing the street, which comprises the largest group with 30,794 incidents!

It is interesting that you went into detail about the lesser numbers but not the above.

"Intersections" which basically means cyclists crossing intersections and not following the rules, such as not stopping at the stop signs, ignoring red lights crossing in the opposite direction of traffic, etc…

Of course I did not dwell on accidents at intersections, which are clearly the lion share of cyclist accidents with both pedestrians and vehicles, because the discussion, at least from me, is not about approving general cyclist wantonness on the road, but narrowly about questioning correctness of laws about riding with the flow of traffic and riding on sidewalks. Cite anywhere where I said cyclists should ignore stop signs and ride across the street at will. Understanding that most accidents are at the intersection, I would think that more than anything cyclists should stop at lights and check for on coming vehicles before riding when the green says go. But that is not what I have been talking about.

Antiquesaving Today 10:10 pm JST

The problem isn't lack of bike lanes or car drivers etc... the problem is cyclist not knowing, not following, not understanding the rules of the road and in many cases simple physics that a multi-ton vehicle cannot stop instantly as the cyclist drat out.

Indeed, which is why when I ride my bike, I seek to stay as far from the road as I possibly can. So I am usually on the sidewalk out of your way. And when pedestrians come, I go as briefly as I can into the street to let them pass, and return to the sidewalk as soon as I can. See, I do care; not only about you, but for myself as well. But I also care about the overuse of laws to regulate every single activity I might do.

Addendum, from the same source:

During overtaking (追越追抜時): 2,281 accidents (= “going with the flow”)

Going past each other (すれ違い時): 950 accidents (= “going against the flow”)

There are still other statistics which one cannot infer the direction of the cyclist:

During left turns (左折時): 9,789 accidents

During right turns (右折時): 8,171 accidents

Other types (その他): 4,986 accidents

Going with the flow of traffic poses the greater risk to cyclists. The statistics clearly support this conclusion. The statistics show that people especially need to pay attention at intersections. This goes for both cyclists and drivers. Laws are no substitute for awareness.

AntiquesavingToday 07:38 pm JST

Clearly you missed the part about fatalities in the article.

In 2024, there were over 67,000 bicycle-related traffic accidents, with over 80% of fatal cases involving a cyclist violating traffic laws

So your whole claim of it being less dangerous for cyclists to not follow the laws and that cars are more dangerous etc... is void based on the simple fact 80% of cyclists fatalities are due to cyclists not following the rules/laws.

According to 自転車乗用中の年齢層別死傷者数の推移 (“Trends in the number of injured and killed individuals by age group while riding bicycles,” https://www.e-stat.go.jp/stat-search/files?page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00130002&tstat=000001027457&cycle=7&year=20240&month=0&stat_infid=000040249658&tclass1val=0), the total number of those injured or killed while riding bicycles were 65,481 persons.

According to 自転車乗用者（第１・第２当事者）の事故類型別交通事故件数の推移 (“Trends in the number of traffic accidents involving cyclists (primary and secondary parties) by accident type,” https://www.e-stat.go.jp/stat-search/files?page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00130002&tstat=000001027457&cycle=7&year=20240&month=0&stat_infid=000040249793&tclass1val=0), of accidents between pedestrians and cyclists (人対車両), 648 occurred while the cyclist was going with the flow of traffic (背面通行中), while 843 occurred while the cyclist was going against the follow of traffic (対面通行中). These figures would support your position that going with the flow of traffic is preferable since those who travel against the flow of traffic are 1.3 times more likely to be involved in an accident with a pedestrian while riding a bicycle. Incidentally, it is accidents between pedestrians and cyclists while crossing the street (横断中) who comprise the largest group with a total of 955 incidents.

According to 自転車乗用者（第１・第２当事者）の事故類型別交通事故件数の推移 (“Trends in the number of traffic accidents involving cyclists (primary and secondary parties) by accident type,” https://www.e-stat.go.jp/stat-search/files?page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00130002&tstat=000001027457&cycle=7&year=20240&month=0&stat_infid=000040249793&tclass1val=0), of accidents between cyclists and another “vehicle” (車両相互), 914 were head-on collisions (正面衝突), while 1,107 were rear-end collisions (追突). These figures would support my position that going with the flow of traffic is preferable since those who travel with the flow of traffic are 9.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident with a vehicle while riding a bicycle. Incidentally, it is intersection collisions (出会い頭), undoubtedly vehicles hitting cyclists crossing the street, which comprises the largest group with 30,794 incidents!

So as I consider these figures, I concede your point to a degree. I am according to these statistics 1.3 times more likely to be involved in an accident with a pedestrian if I go against the flow of traffic, but 9.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident with a vehicle if I go with the flow of traffic. So I will leave it up to you to figure out just how “bad” it is that I am for riding against the flow of traffic, but just for some more context:

According to 自転車乗用者（第１・第２当事者）の事故類型別交通事故件数の推移 (“Trends in the number of traffic accidents involving cyclists (primary and secondary parties) by accident type,” https://www.e-stat.go.jp/stat-search/files?page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00130002&tstat=000001027457&cycle=7&year=20240&month=0&stat_infid=000040249793&tclass1val=0), of accidents between cyclists and no other person (車両単独), 636 were with a stationary object (工作物衝突), while 4,575 were cyclist falls (転倒). Remove all stationary objects!

I for my part will keep in mind that while some injuries may occur when there is in an accident with a pedestrian, such is preferable risk to the major injuries and death that can occur in an accident with a vehicle. 1.3 vs. 9.6, so it is 1.3 for me. The risk is about the same as hitting a stationary object.

Garthgoyle Today 03:47 pm JST

jeffy

In other words, you'd rather be the cause of an accident on the road, put other cyclists in danger and ultimately yourself, rather than stopping being lazy (and selfish) and riding your bike an extra 100 meters.

No, I'd just rather see a society where people are aware of their environment rather than be lazy brained and dependant on systems to do the thinking for them.

https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs/

That username, though. Today 02:22 pm JST

If I were cycling towards you on the correct side of the road - the left - as you were riding against traffic, would you let me pass on your right (closer to the curb) or would you expect to take the curbside line?

Having played the handlebar wiggle game many times when encountering those turning left while riding on the left side of the street with traffic which I turn right onto against the traffic, I have learned to just stop, and let the other person decide which way to go. In the present case I would do something similar. As we are both cyclists, the road is equally a danger. I would either go onto the sidewalk momentarily while you pass if there is space, or stop and move closer to the sidewalk allowing you to pass in the bike lane. 1 second is not with it for me to insist on right of way, especially when we both stand as equals in the bike lane. But as others have noted, there are many place where no bike lanes are present, but my course is the same there too.

 jeffy Today 11:05 am JST

Case in point: I need to go to Gyomu Super often. To get there I connect to a main street and must go right. Now the Gyomu Super is on the same side of the street as I am. But so that I do not disturb those who are of your mind, I need to wait at the crosswalk and cross to the other side of the street, ride down the street on the opposite side, wait again at the crosswalk and cross back to the side of the street that I was just on

Antiquesaving Today 12:36 pm JST

So using the same logic, when I go to the gyomu super by car the same situation but I must also take 2 extra roads to come around and get into the parking, so should I just drive in the opposite direction of traffic? Of course not, I follow the law and yes it takes longer and is less efficient but that is the law!

It is the same logic only if one assumes that bicycles are comparable to cars, which is admittedly the position of those who make laws. Yet it is because car accidents often lead to fatal injuries that cars require greater control. To me, bicycles are more akin to pedestrians who are free to walk with or against the traffic apart from cars in their own dedicated space given the potential for fatal accidents with cars. Someone walking while using their phone may walk into someone else walking using their phone coming from the opposite direction, but such incidents, which in the vast majority of the cases to not cause serious injury, do not lead to changes in the laws requiring people to walk in the direction of car traffic. Here it is understood that it is the distraction while walking, the use of the phone, that is the problem, not the direction of movement. Incidents of cars veering onto the sidewalk and killing pedestrians or pedestrians walking into traffic and getting killed also do not lead to changes requiring pedestrians to walk with the flow of traffic. Here it is understood that the car has the greater responsibility and that those walking have the responsibility to stay off the road. But bicycles operate in a grey zone. A cyclist not otherwise distracted, should see someone coming and either move to the sidewalk or, if on the sidewalk, move into the street. And if there is no avenue to go, stop in place. It really boils down to pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers being vigilant and proactive with their own safety. Doing this would do away with the necessity of law. But those above believe people require that thinking be done for them, and thus where we are.

Law is only valid insofar as law has valid basis. In California for years we were told that marijuana is a drug that causes insanity. Then California changed the law and made recreational use of marijuana legal. Was everyone lied to in the past and the law had no real basis? Is everyone being lied to now and the law has no real basis? But do not ask such questions though, because those above always have everyone's interest in mind when they make laws. Having the fine for riding a bicycle while intoxicated the same as driving while intoxicated is excessive. But the government has to make money somehow for future news scandals. These new fines are part of that.

Garthgoyle Today 09:20 am JST

I hate people riding their bikes on the side of the road AGAINST the traffic. Drives me nuts.

Where I grew up, the laws on this flip-flopped. It was said that one should ride with the flow of traffic since bicycles are a type of vehicle. It was said that one should ride against the traffic so that both cyclist and driver can see one another since the cyclist is the more vulnerable in an accident. So I just do whatever makes the most sense relative to where I am going and could careless about thinking of justifications for what is obviously a subjective point.

Case in point: I need to go to Gyomu Super often. To get there I connect to a main street and must go right. Now the Gyomu Super is on the same side of the street as I am. But so that I do not disturb those who are of your mind, I need to wait at the crosswalk and cross to the other side of the street, ride down the street on the opposite side, wait again at the crosswalk and cross back to the side of the street that I was just on. That would drive me nuts. So if I have to choose between driving you nuts and myself, I would prefer that it be you, since I would only make you nuts once by your observing of me, but I would go nuts every time I make the journey which, as I have said, is often. But sadly, the change of laws means decision making will be out of my hands. But if those in charge really desire to drive me nuts, nuts is what I shall give them in spades!

Harry_Gatto May 28 11:02 pm JST

At the bright center of the image is a massive cluster of galaxies called Abell S1063, which is 4.5 billion light years from Earth.

If you could actually see that from Earth you would be seeing light generated 4.5 billion years ago as that is how long it took to reach your eyes. By way of comparison it takes only 8 minutes for the light from our Sun to reach Earth.

And what is even more amazing is that when considering the night sky as whole, what one perceives as a single "now" is actually a mosaic of innumerable "thens." Mind blown! BOOM! Perspective.

Cephus Today 10:57 am JST

Yes everything we think we understand about the cosmos is very wrong and it doesn't even come close. The tools we use today as great as it may seems are still from finite minds expecting to reveal a cosmos made by infinite minds.

As I understand, the problem is one of perspective. The ancients, based on their earthbound vantage point, observed the heavens revolving around the earth. This led to geocentric cosmologies which in their time were taken as “obvious”. Later it came to be understood that the earthbound perspective itself created the apparent effect and that a heliocentric perspective yielded a more accurate description of planetary movement within the solar system. And yet from another perspective, the planets do not actually orbit elliptically around the sun, but in fact spiral in the wake of the sun’s gravitational pull as it orbits the center of the galaxy. So perspective is the key to accuracy.

Now the present model is that the universe originated in a singularity, from which all of spacetime came into being in a ‘Big Bang.’ Yet it seems to me that this too is based on a faulty perspective, namely, from the vantage point of spacetime. It seems erroneous to assume that the singularity could transition from “unbanged” to “banged” without the existence of spacetime, that is, spatial and temporal dimensions. The solution, in my view, is that the singularity exists in superposition, both “unbanged” and “banged”. We only perceive the singularity as “banged” due to our perspective in spacetime.

It is good to approach the observable universe with logic and reason. That approach has yielded many important discoveries. But as the physicists will tell you, the mathematical models become increasingly difficult to apply as one goes further back in time. It seems to me the reason for this is because one is approaching “irreality,” were the universe as we know it begins to lose cohesion.

You speak of “finite minds” in contrast to “infinite minds” that made the cosmos. My own view is that there is but one infinite mind which is expressed in plurality. We can say that “God is omniscient,” but how does God know? Does God know only in a theoretical way, like someone who has never played golf knows by observing a golf player, or in an experiential way, like someone who has actually played golf. Does God know ignorance? Does God know what it is to learn? How might this work within the divine mind? By means of a sandbox perhaps, one in which the singular infinite finds particularization through self imposed limitation. A spacial and temporal space to generate the objects of divine cognition. After all, one needs things to know in order to know them.

Prompt:

"Gemini, what are the possible signs of ovarian cancer?"

Gemini gives answer.

System on the back end:

Add ovarian cancer concern to profile of G-mail user jane.doe1994@gmail.com at IP 1xx.xx.xxx.xx. Update information to advertising partners.

"I think to myself, 'What a wonderful world.'"

WilliamJames Today 08:30 am JST

Sitting quietly,

Doing nothing,

Spring comes,

And the grass

Grows by itself.

Quite so. From the start, one has already attained the goal. What does one need to do?

From the Diamond Sutra:

The Buddha said to him, “Subhuti, those who would now set forth on the bodhisattva path should thus give birth to this thought: ‘However many beings there are in whatever realms of being might exist, whether they are born from an egg or born from a womb, born from the water or born from the air, whether they have form or no form, whether they have perception or no perception or neither perception nor no perception, in whatever conceivable realm of being one might conceive of beings, in the realm of complete nirvana I shall liberate them all. And though I thus liberate countless beings, not a single being is liberated.’

“And why not? Subhuti, a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a being cannot be called a ‘bodhisattva.’ And why not? Subhuti, no one can be called a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a self or who creates the perception of a being, a life, or a soul.”

Liberated, but not liberated. It was a cup after all.