I also live in Chicago and wouldn’t mind walking extra to another stop, but Chicago also has a massive traffic problem, particularly post pandemic. During rush hour, the bus is stop and go already.
I’m really curious how this would pan out here, but it can’t be the only solution.
I think the only way to solve this is to invest much more into making buses nicer & increasing the numbers, and then instituting bus-only lanes on major arterial roads so that taking the bus becomes faster than fighting traffic.
Bus only lanes exist, but not everywhere (some streets are not wide enough). Additionally, at the moment (and really always) there's a ton of construction on the bridges going in and out of the city, causing buses to miss out on the bus-only lanes for years or more at a time. Bus systems are a complicated beast.
You don't have to allow cars on every single paved surface. Cars aren't supposed to be on wide sidewalks, you don't have to allow them on every single road either.
Yeah if they aren't enforcing the bus-only aspect then it's not really a bus-only lane. If a bus only lane exists but people violate it in cars with impunity then obviously it's not going to work.
Wow, this is a weird a comment. Who are "they"? You sound like you think there's some giant conspiracy against JS frameworks. Is the Illuminati behind this? I kid, but a browser feature is kind of what it is. It can take years for features to make it into enough browsers to make them usable. It's quite a bit different than the fluidness of a JS framework.
This discussion comes up all the time and I always have the same response: not everyone needs a full-on framework for what they're doing. They also may need to share that code with other teams using other frameworks or even third parties. The post even mentions that web components may not be a good fit for you.
> Who are "they"? You sound like you think there's some giant conspiracy against JS frameworks.
Yes. There is. The main developers and proselityzers were completely insanely biased against web frameworks (especially React).
It wasn't even a conspiracy. All you had to do was to follow Alex Russel (the person who introduced the idea of web components in the first place) and see his interactions with framework authors and his views towards web frameworks.
The new people in the space driving the specs are hardly any better. E.g. their reactions to Ryan Carniato's rather mild criticism of Web Components is just filled with vile, bile, and hate.
They literally refuse to even admit they have a problem, or want to look at any other solutions than the ones they cook up.
> but a browser feature is kind of what it is. It can take years for features to make it into enough browsers to make them usable.
Strange, browsers push dozens of specs for web components without ever taking any time to see if the yet another half-baked "solution" is actually workable.
Some links to examples of the sort of behaviour you're describing would be really helpful here (I say this as someone who is sympathetic - I work with on a web component/Lit codebase in my 9-5 and I'm not a fan, compared to the React workflow I had in a past life).
Unfortunately, as most of them left Twitter they also temoved all their accounts, so you can only see responses from framework authors like Rich Harris.
Web components are a trend? I've been using them for close to 10 years and they're still not anywhere close to mainstream. Loudly as possible? They've quietly just kind of been there for years.
I think we have a generation of developers that only know React and they're so engrained with it they simply cannot imagine a world without it. If you really can't find a use case for web components then you're living in a bubble.
We have been through all this before with jQuery. The generation of JavaScript developers at the beginning on React only knew jQuery and they really wanted to shoehorn all the jQuery nonsense into the standards. From their perspective it makes complete sense because that is the only one way to do things. They got querySelectors into the DOM.
Now we are seeing the exact same thing again. People only know React, so they want the standards to look like the only one thing they know. That doesn't make it a good idea. Every time this comes up we exchange simplicity and performance for easiness and temporary emotional comfort. Its only a temporary win until the next generational trend comes along.
> If you really can't find a use case for web components then you're living in a bubble.
There's a very tiny use-case for web components. And even there it's riddled with a huge amount of potential (and actual) footguns that "in the bubble" devs have been talking about for a decade at this point, and some which were finally acknowledged: https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents-cg/2022.html (no updates since)
> There's a very tiny use-case for web components.
That's weird, we've been using them at my company for a number of years and there's plenty of other examples of them being adopted elsewhere too. This continues to read as, "it's not React, so it's bad."
There are companies that still use jQuery, or Angular, or Ember, or vanilla JS, or Blazor, or...
Just because tech exists and is usable doesn't mean it doesn't have a list of issues and footguns a mile long, some of which are explicitly recognized by the Web Components Working Group. And which still need 20+ various specs to paper over.
The problem is your comment is missing really important information. You said you returned in 2017, but only mentioned that it was good in 2005. This leaves a 12 year period where it could have declined. You didn't say it was good in 2005 and you already started to see the decline before you left.
You have no more evidence that it declined before the acquisition than after it. It reads as some weird defense of Bezos and then you doubled down by saying management wasn't happy with employee backlash.
Anyways, I agree that the decline did start before the acquisition, like it started for all newspapers. The Internet killed the newspaper. Bezos was supposed to save it.
> It's also the case that The Washington Post brought itself down. I grew up reading WaPo and when I moved back to DC as an adult c. 2017 I got a subscription.
This doesn't really add up given Bezos purchased it in October 2013.
> It also probably did not inspire very much good will from management/ownership when the company's employees started regularly leaking proceedings at company meetings and reporters started making a practice of using social media to criticize management during work hours.
Your thinking is completely backwards. This isn't the first case of a wealthy individual buying journalism in order to destroy it. Why do you think employee backlash happened in the first place?
If you mean to say that officials in Trump's administration are hypocritical, then say that. But many are accusing thousands of rank-and-file gun rights supporters of hypocrisy on a thin to nonexistent evidence base.
Here's how one gun rights group responded to some of the statements you quoted:
You didn't say "rank-and-file gun rights supporters", you said "right-wingers". These are all MAGA, which today, whether you like it or not, is the majority of "right-wingers". MAGA lives on a lack of principles, and that's why it's popular. Things are getting real now, huh?
This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy. There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely. There’s nothing stopping you from helping build the community you desire. You just want the work done for you. Stop complaining about it and make it happen.
The tools are there to make it what you want, it is light years ahead of the other platform. Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination.
> This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy
Which of the many backed and well thought out points did you find lazy?
> There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely
Not sure you read the article, but his point is that there's nothing to curate. It's full of a certain type of person, and not much else. I can attest to this too.
> Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination
I have no nostalgia for Twitter, but I do remember what it used to be like (way back when you used to SMS in your tweets!). It was a fun place with random, sometimes interesting, sometimes thoughtful, most times funny and inane posts. That's not nostalgia, that's how it was.
It takes time to build a community. Twitter was not what it was over night, it took time. Before that, it was just "a certain type of person." Mostly pointless crap. You're looking for a specific community but not willing to put in the work to help build it. The point is the tools are there to help build the community but everyone just expects it to happen for them.
That's why it's "lazy". You just want the benefits of the community but not actually build it. At the time Twitter became popular, there was novelty to it to keep it going through the early days. Bluesky doesn't have that advantage, the novelty of this type of platform is gone, it's just expected to be a replacement right away.
And I say this because I've seen other people with actual pull, like Mark Cuban, have similar sentiments. You can drown out all the noise you don't like and help move your followers onto it. It simply needs a larger community. More people means the current majority becomes a minority.
> I haven't seen a convincing argument about why it would have been better if he remained in power.
You're way off base here. No one is arguing that he should be in power. It's the way it was done. You're also ignoring a very important question: now what?
Sorry, but the last year has not inspired confidence that this administration knows what it's doing.
Any nuclear-empowered nation is obviously off limits, but any nation without nuclear and with active hostilities towards the US is certainly thinking twice.
I’m really curious how this would pan out here, but it can’t be the only solution.
reply