Perhaps they detest building snowmen, cuddling up in bed when it's cold, drying off in front of an open fire after walking through the rain, that awesome thunderstorm with cool rain after a boiling hot day, the neighbourly camaraderie assessing the damage after a storm etc etc
I've never understood people who don't like the variety of weather and seasons. It must be so so boring to not experience, or enjoy weather.
A lot of people can't stand him, but I found Sir Ranulph Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes' autobiography, Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know, a big mental change in how i perceived weather as an inconvenience when I was younger. Clearly as an adventurer you have to learn to live with whatever weather there is. It is just an inconvenience to experience on the way to your end goal.
I think the obsession with "good weather" is very very unhealthy. Just think about the kind of people who move to the south of Spain to live in disgusting British ex-pat filled towns. Largely feeble minded grotesques you couldn't have anything more than a polite conversation with. Look at Florida for an american equivalent.
Further it would be interesting to see how productivity intersects with climate. A historical view on Europe's changing climate would be most interesting from a historical perspective.
I think you can also draw a lot of parallels between weather and emotion also.
It'd be amazingly unhealthy to be in a permanent state of "contentedness" for the rest of your life like some drugged up zombie. We need the bad days, the sadness, the anger, the whole range of emotions, so that we appreciate the other emotions, and feel truly alive.
There's definitely an unhealthy obsession for some with nulling out variable weather and replacing it with whatever they deem as "good weather". Exactly as a mentally ill person might go to their doctor and say "I don't want to feel any emotions any more".
Some people prefer seasonal variations in weather; this whole discussion of 'sunny year round' preference is something that people hitched themselves on about 3-4 hierarchies up.
> There's definitely an unhealthy obsession for some with nulling out variable weather and replacing it with whatever they deem as "good weather". Exactly as a mentally ill person might go to their doctor and say "I don't want to feel any emotions any more".
That's a bad comparison. Some people have one kind of preference - sunny. Others both like to go skiing and to go water-skiing.
I don't think it is a bad comparison at all. You could say people have a preference for being happy. But being happy every day would be pretty unwise. After a while it would stop being happy and it'd be relentlessly normal. Then you'd need something to make you "super happy"!
Variation in all aspects of life is what keeps us grounded and gives us reference points.
Some people are both happy going skiing, and going swimming at the beach (maybe even in the span of one day). Since both of these two conditions, made possible by climate/weather, elicit positive emotions, it doesn't really have any analogy to what you are describing.
> Clearly as an adventurer you have to learn to live with whatever weather there is. It is just an inconvenience to experience on the way to your end goal.
As an adventurer? The weather can be much more of an inconvenience to an "adventurer" (which I guess has something to do with being outdoors) than to the average modern, white/blue collar worker, person.
Too cold a weather might mean that you have to be very mindful of what you are wearing and adjust it to your activity level; wear too much while you are active and you get sweaty, which means that you in turn get colder. Wear too little and you start freezing. Even changing attire between activity levels can be difficult, since you sometimes have to undress partially in order to change attires, which might be enough of a room to leave you freezing. Too cold weather might mean that your equipment stops functioning because something froze. Too cold weather might mean that you have a hard time doing anything precise with your hands, because your wooly mittens don't lend themselves to that kind of work.
Then perhaps the weather gets milder; now you have to question whether you are able to cross that river on that ice. Also perhaps beware of snow avalanches.
A lot of rain might mean that you get, you know, wet, perhaps most of the stuff you have. Now you have to carry around wet tents etc. because you didn't have time to dry anything. Perhaps you even have to go to bed in a wet sleeping bag. Good luck trying to sleep.
That is just normal weather - not even going into things like storms.
Obviously preparation is important in extreme weather. That was kind of my point. In moderate weather largely deflected by a parasoled sheet of plastic it isn't the end of societal existence
Britain is a small island in the middle of a shallow sea with a warm current flowing roughly South to North and a cold jet stream flowing West to East at high altitude. Our weather depends on which way the wind is blowing and how wet the air is. Those from continental climates may find the variability refreshing!
PS: I live in the bit of the UK that isn't London. There is quite a lot of that.
Certainly, but, in Britain, as anyone who has tried to organise a picnic or outdoor wedding or similar will know, the variability is on a time scale of hours rather than months.
PS we seem to be keen on silent downvoting again. Parent post makes a perfectly valid point that allowed me to clarify my comment (timescales).
London doesn't get awesome thunderstorms. I used to joke about the annual thunderclap. This year we've surprisingly had a few already. Neighbourly camaraderie? Open fire? Walking in the rain? Walking in puddles of engine oil? You're describing the weather experience of living in the countryside of a tropics country, not London.
I'm talking about UK weather in general. I lived in London for a year, worked there for 4 and remember many thunderstorms. Not so much neighbourly camaraderie though. If you want neighbourly camaraderie live in a village.
Nope, London doesn't have thunderstorms. Maybe they're thunderstorms by UK standards, but not by global standards, not in the 13 years I've lived here. One of the things I miss most about living elsewhere in the world is the stimulating weather. Be it big blue skies, substantial snow, bone rattling thunderstorms, lightning displays, hail storms that bring traffic to a halt. London is wishy washy. Drizzle, enough snow to make a dirty slush, a thunderclap, a single flash of lightning, hail so small that it melts away on contact. Summer in 2004 (2005?) was two weeks long. Literally. Two weeks of sun. Dreary weather. I'm desperate for the European economy to pick up so I can leave.
I agree. I went to uni in London for a year - worst decision ever. It's not somewhere you can just meet up with friends who live somewhere else in London.
But then cities are generally like that - very lonely places swarming with strangers.
> This part of England has the same weather throughout most of the year
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. We have seasons over here - clearly defined seasons. At the moment we're enjoying hot sunny days, rainy nights. We'll probably have some good snow in the winter, and a variety of things thrown in between now and then.
If you're a fan of weather, then the UK is a great place to live. If you don't like weather then somewhere like California is a better option with its relentless boring sunshine.
London gets a terrible rep. I come from Wales and the difference in the weather is quite dramatic. Back home in Wales, it probably rains 150 more days than it does in London. I have a leather trench that kept me warm in the winters in Wales, it now has me boiling during London winters.
Yes i agree London can get pretty grey, but it's nowhere near as miserable as people make out.
People who complain about it have never lived in miserable weather. From what i've experienced, its actually rather nice and varied. Live up north, or even further up both then you'll get to experience miserable weather.
Weather is one of those things that everyone complains about, everywhere.
The only way to properly evaluate weather is to (a) figure out what you like, and (b) check the data on Weatherspark. Unless you're talking about the summit of Mt. Washington or Ben Nevis, the complaints will always be scarier than the reality. Take Seattle's notorious cloud cover and rain. Reality: 80% cloud cover in the winter, meaning 15-20 hours of sunlight per week-- not great, but not "constant overcast"-- and an hour or two of light rain on most days. Complaint: "you never see the sun in January and it always rains".
It's unpredictable how someone will react to climate (especially because even specific locales have good and bad summers and winters from year to year). I've lived in Minnesota and New York City, and I always had worse winter SAD issues in New York, not because of anything to do with the weather itself, but for the damn buildings. "Urban sunset" is 2:30 in some neighborhoods, in the winter. (That said, the benefits of living in New York more than make up for it.)
London's definition of "hot" is 20-25 C and mostly sunny. Personally, that's all the heat I need, but there are people in the US who hate the lack of a "real" summer (30+) in places like Seattle, London, or Paris. Most of the US, even in the North (Chicago, New York) gets summers that are very hot by European standards, and so some people get bothered when it's July and they have to wear a jacket in the morning. I don't. When I was in L.A. a year ago people were complaining about "June Gloom" because it was 22 C and cloudy. I couldn't believe it; I was like, "June is still spring, this is awesome!" It was probably a bummer to people who thought LA had year-round "beach weather", though.
"perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen."
I hear this sentiment a lot. Having a higher percentage of cars following safe practices is safer even if those are cars aren't perfect and even if 100% of the cars aren't automated.
Can you tell me the logic (I've seen it many times in posts) that there won't be any safety benefits until all cars are automated (or until there aren't any manual drivers?).
I disagree that the benefit will be that discrete.
The trouble is that even if driverless cars are overall vastly safer, in today's litigious environment it just takes one fatal crash to derail (!) the whole concept when the car maker is sued out of existence. Whereas suing individual drivers doesn't take down the whole system.
I see this argument a lot, and it seems to beg the question to assume that there is such a "litigious environment."
Why are Google and other companies trying to develop this technology if all it takes is a single fatal crash, and therefore a single lawsuit? It should be in their rational self-interest to avoid any contact with this technology. It would be lighting on money on fire.
This is not the strongest example, but automobile companies have ignored fatality inducing problems, yet the practice didn't end their business. There is likely enough profit in the pursuit to deal with such issues. These lawsuits are slow-moving enough that there would be room to maneuver.
The greatest threat, in my opinion, is over-reacting politicians passing laws due to a shock in public opinion on the safety of the cars. The shock could be legitimate, due to reckless implementation, or just due to an unpreventable accident.
I trot out the power generation industry as an example. People sue nuke plants out of existence, despite them being far less damaging than coal - in both lives and environmental destruction.
There's also the vaccine industry. Some vaccinations result in severe adverse reactions in a handful of people. But the public health benefit is so vast that the government has stepped in to shield vaccine makers from the lawsuits.
As far as I know, nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste is more of a NIMBY problem than a problem of excess punitive damages or other alleged problems with lawsuits. This could also be an example of public shock putting pressure on politicians and public utilities to shy away from nuclear power.
The vaccine point suggests to me that it's not so black and white about if self-driving cars are doomed. If the public safety benefit of self-driving cars becomes so great, then maybe the government will be pressured to ensure they're here to stay. I think there will definitely need to be changes in the law to accommodate this tech, but it's not impossible.
Hope you have some compelling evidence at hand when you sue an entity that has a complete record of the incident.
In any case, I expect the incipient googlecars will have capacitive sensors on the steering wheel, requiring that your fingerprints are on the controls.
Some of the largest causes of accidents to my knowedge are all due to human error (ie drunk driving, texting while driving, speeding, blind spots, etc). This is all something that an automated system will eliminate entirely. For every one of these unsafe drivers you replace with an automated driver, you make the road safer.
(that said, I don't think it makes the car itself physically safer, that is up to the manufacturer)
> software bugs, ability to be hacked, snooped upon by NSA, also go along way.
You're already trusting a car driven by software that could conceivably "be hacked" to hurt you. Algorithms already control things like antilock brakes, shifting, adjusting the suspension and deciding when to deploy the airbags. And assuming you have a cellphone, the NSA is already tracking your every move.
Yes, the first driverless cars will have all sorts of blind spots, but they will gradually get better whereas human drivers won't. Software-based drivers can learn from accidents and near-accidents that almost any other software-based driver anywhere has had, whereas human drivers are largely limited to learning from their own vastly smaller range of experience. As a software developer you should be able to predict the eventual outcome: programs will eventually in most circumstances beat even the best human drivers just as they now beat even the best human chess players.
I ride a motorcycle. Every. Single. Time. I go for a ride, I am forced to contend with somebody in a cage making a dangerous move due to either inattention or carelessness. Worse, even conscientious drivers can completely fail to see a motorcycle (or a bicycle or a kid) due to the way the brain processes vision. When you contend with this on a daily basis, you realize how valuable it would be to have somebody driving who is always paying attention and doesn't have vision holes.
Yes, bugs are a real possibility, but compare the number of miles Google has driven and the number of accidents they've had with the general public, and it compares unbelievably well, especially for such a new technology.
Finally, the NSA doesn't need your car to track you. Between your phone, your license plate and your face, you would have a hard time going off grid.
Funny. Whenever I see a motorcycle, it's being driven recklessly and dangerously. So from my point of view, if you want to make roads safer, get rid of motorcycles first.
That's called confirmation bias and is a horrible way to build policy. I would, however, fully support regulations that required more education and smaller bikes for new riders. Even solo-riding age limits (can't ride alone until you have son much experience and age) could be useful. Squidly behavior (stunting and the like) should not be tolerated (more closed circuit roads would help, as it did with drag racing).
However, regardless of how bad somebody is riding, when something goes wrong, the rider always loses. Also, something that may seem "dangerous and aggressive" to you may be the best way for a rider to get out of a dangerous situation. I use the acceleration and maneuverability of my bike to escape e.g. being boxed in by large trucks on the freeway. I'm just taking advantage of the escape hatch before something goes catastrophically wrong.
I have seen a few crashes involving motorcycles not paying attention or taking unreasonable risks. Overtaking on blind bends etc.
I haven't seen anywhere near the same number of crashes involving cars.
Then I'm sorry to tell you that new cars are already run by software, even though the input devices have not changed. Your car software can start the engine, disable the brakes, steer and so on. The cars on our roads already can be and have been hacked. Still, software glitches make up very little of the accidents that we see.
Software glitches can be tested and fixed. Human errors cannot.
Also, as a cheeky sidenote, do you also refuse to use driverless trains, driverless elevators, driverless escalators and driverless theme park rides? :)
You're being snooped already. Chances are your automotive systems are keeping logs, and your cell phone regularly broadcasts your location. That cat long ago left the bag.
this meme of everything google has to relate back to ads is wrong and needs to be retired. They already have non-ad revenues above $1B/year. They are clearly investing in non-ad businesses across the board.
It's because of the 55B they made last year, more than 50 of it was from advertising. I'm sure Coca-Cola is more than a soft drink company, but that's the main thing. The only real threat to google is a threat to their ad revenue. So, it makes sense to think of google in terms of ad sales.
People these days are so busy photographing, videoing, posting crap to twitter to see if people approve of what they're doing... They're missing out on actually enjoying and living life.
Look at concerts - a sea of idiots holding up their phones, videoing an event, watching through their silly little phone. Enjoy the event! Buy the official DVD later if you want.
> so they can share the pictures / videos with friends.
And 99% of the time the quality is so awful that nobody cares. It's just to show people they were at that gig or that event.
> imho in a way its enhancing the moment.
I really don't feel like looking at something through a lens or holding your camera is enhancing the moment. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty has a scene like that where the photograph don't take a picture just to appreciate the moment, because it's beautiful.
> wasting their time passing judgement on people.
well you're right on this one, to each their own I guess.
I think a greta parallel is hunting and fishing. It's all very well to say, just enjoy the lake and buy your fish later. In reality, it's hard to "just enjoy" some things. We need to interact with them somehow or talk to people about them or something.
Same with hunting. Lots of people say that what they enjoy is tracking, stalking. Watching animals for hours and getting to understand them. You could theoretically do all those things without a rifle… but you won't. People who are obsessive blob hunters know more about blobs than anyone else. They know the environment better than anyone else and they learn all sorts of interesting skills along the way.
Also, at the risk of sounding troll-ish (I hope I'm not though). Adding IMHO here sounds a bit like 'I'm not racist but.' I think humbleness is overrated, but that isn't a humble opinion.
I would agree with you ... there are many individuals who only see the city they're visiting through a lens. On the other hand, 30-60 seconds a day to capture a lifetime of changes doesn't seem overly arduous. I have lots of memories I wish I'd captured via a photograph or journal entry but it's a bit too late now. This is quite a keepsake.
Before visiting the link I thought the guy had his daughter line up in front of a white wall every single day so he could do a dramatic time-lapse sort of thing. Maybe that would have been a bit obsessive. All he did was a regular snapshot wherever it was convenient. This is no more obsessive than brushing your teeth every morning.
In fairness, I stand in front of a white wall every day to brush my teeth. I could easily imagine connected a mounted camera wirelessly to the button on my electric tooth brush and not having to think about it.
Of course, this comes from a person who already has his phone record its gps posistion every 5 minutes.
Photography is a fun hobby for many people. It is an experience itself. And who cares if people are posting on Facebook and Twitter. I enjoy looking at my friends vacations and get ideas for things to do.
But I agree with you on concerts, that is just rude to take photos while ruining the view for people behind you.
And I love this project. It seems a natural project for any photographer parent. I am sure we will this more and more. Not obsessive at all.
> who cares if people are posting on Facebook and Twitter
It is the sheer volume of photos that I believe bothers a lot of people. "oversharing." You get sick of the same baby every single day. Also craving extreme volumes of attention makes you come off as narcissistic. A lot of the time those photos aren't for them, they are to present to others in order to gain attention.
I suppose there is an optimal ratio. While I agree some people overuse it, I still find it unbelievably awesome the fact that we carry a device in our pocket capable of registering a moment so that we can remember it later or share with others.
Well. If you're going to make a moral appeal to The Law, my question would be whether the laws are actually there to protect the consumer, or whether they're actually there to protect the entrenched interests under the guise of protecting the consumer.
So here's my challenge for you: If these Uber cars are, in fact, injuring the consumer, you should probably be able to find a bunch of reports of disgruntled consumers who were injured in some way (bad service, ripped off, etc).
All I've heard about is very-happy consumers, and disgruntled taxi drivers (who have a conflict of interest here). So please forgive me if I think this matter is about the cabbies who think of the passengers as some form or another of chattel. :P
Some regulation, sure. But quite often it exists to protect producers and consumer protection is merely an excuse, and even regulation passed with the genuine intention of protecting consumers often has the effect of protecting producers.
Also obviously if Google reduces the pool of adsense publishers, the money is more likely to be spent advertising on Google properties, and Google will take 100% of that, rather than 32%.
If that was an ideal strategy they would have never opened it up to publishers in the first place.
Google no doubt optimizes their algorithms for profit, but they surely don't need to block out publishers to ensure their own sites have ads to display.
Ad inventory supply is and always will be > demand. As such, their actions to make short-term revenue by banning publishers makes sense. It's basically recycling publishers, knowing the pubs wont be able to do anything about it. Obviously it hurts their brand but they're too big to give a shit.
I've never understood people who don't like the variety of weather and seasons. It must be so so boring to not experience, or enjoy weather.