-cide is a latin suffix that quite simply means "kill". Trying to call ethnic cleansing genocide is like calling divorce mariticide or moving away from home patricide.
The correct latin term would be something like "expulsio gentium".
Raphael Lemkin, the guy who first coined the term "genocide", considered "cultural genocide" (the killing of a culture if you will), a central component of genocide.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but people generally resist being ethnic cleansed, and so the perpetrators have to kill a lot of them.
The post you replied to suggested a real solution to the problem. It was implemented in my current org years ago (after log4j) and we have not been affected by any of the malware dependencies that has happened since.
It's an interesting idea. I did some napkin math based on the Solaris Urbino 18 bus. The buses have about 45 square meters of ceiling area (18m by 2.5m). Assuming efficient solar panels you could get 250w/sqm. That works out to 11.25 kwh/hour. The bus advertises with 600km of range with 800kwh of batteries so that is 1.33 kwh/km. Hence it could do ~8km/h on average when it is sunny.
The math does not really work out to a viable product with this bus, but it is not too far off. A city bus that has been purpose-built for low speed in urban areas without other traffic may work as it can make some sacrifices. For instance, since it runs much slower on average it would need smaller engines. It could also use more light-weight material since it won't need to handle high speed collisions. If it is just used for short distances within a city center it could also do away with seats. Lower speed should also lead to lower consumption.
The Solaris Urbino 18 weighs 17.5 tons curb weight. Assuming fuel consumption is pretty linearly related with weight and you could get it down to less than half, you could get a bus with a range of 10 miles per hour of charging. If it drove for 6 hours a day, but got charged for 12, 20 miles on average per hour is possible.
Yeah I wasn't clear enough but I was really thinking about the most limited form of "transportation", low speed, low weight, so minimal frame and no protections really. Basically a string of bus stops on wheels. Maybe an average speed of 13mph would be enough. That's 3 three times the average walking speed.
Why bother? Put the charge station in the bus stop instead. They have a longer runtime to charge and the bus does not have to be slow.
Potentially easier to maintain too.
Why bother ? Have the solar panels on top of the tram warehouse, use the tram batteries for storage, swap empty ones for full ones when needed. If the solar array is down use the grid. That way you divid points of failure instead of multiplying them
> I'm sure they must exist somewhere, but battery-powered trams are not popular.
Yes, they do exist. The Alstom Citadis at Rio de Janeiro, which I take often, uses a supercapacitor for small pieces of its route (mostly crossings where the third rail would be damaged too often by vehicle traffic, or be impractical); according to the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Citadis), the Alstom Citadis at Nice uses batteries for parts of its route (https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/nice-trams/). I'm sure there are others.
In my experience, non-coders with LLMs can go beyond simple scripts and build non-trivial small applications nowadays, but the difference of outcomes between them and a competent coder with LLMs is still staggering.
I have - somebody in my mushroom foraging group wrote an app that predicts what kinds of mushrooms you are likely to find in different spots in our area, based on weather forecasts and data he's been collecting for years. It's a dead simple frontend/backend, but it works, he built and deployed it himself and he had zero coding experience before this. Pretty impressive, from my perspective.
As a programmer I can see all the rough edges but that doesn't seem to bother the other 99% of people on the group who use it.
Only in one sense. As code is now cheaper, abstractions meant to decrease code quantity have decreased in value. But abstractions meant to organize logic to make it easier to comprehend retains its value.
Previously there was a tension between easy-to-write (helper functions to group together oft-repeated lines of code, etc) vs easy to read (where often modest repetition is fine and is clearer). I felt this tension a lot in tests where the future reader is very happy with explicit lines of code setting things up, whereas the test author is bored and writes layers of helper functions to speed their work up.
But for LLMs, it seems readability of code pretty much equals its writability?
To make code more authorable by LLM, we approximately just need to make it more readable in the traditional sense (code comments, actual abstractions not just code-saving helper functions, etc).
I hope so, but it adds an extra difficulty
Easy to understand is not always an absolute metric, a project with many lines of code can be easy to understand for a team with a certain experience and difficult to understand for another team with a different experience (not less but different).
Now I will have to think about "easy to understand" for AI
There's little to gain from innovating on the landing page. A slick Wordpress template gets the job done just as well as a tailor-made landing page. Effort is better spent elsewhere (the product).
I picked up React Native and Expo last year for a medium-sized hobby project and found it a better experience than when I developed a Flutter app three years ago.
I have always heard the React Native dependencies were a mess, but I did not have that experience. Things were stable and Expo has pretty good documentation.
