OsmAnd does have live navigation as far as I understand it (turn-by-turn directions), but no live traffic status, because for that you a lot of drivers willing to surrender their location/sensor data. Anything "live" cannot be privacy respecting. I never found live traffic information particularly worthwhile to be honest.
Maybe it's time to give up privacy absolutism and add strictly opt in live data features.
That reminds me, place reviews using ATProto. Kinda surprised that no map client jumped on that when it's the exact thing you need to replace a centralized service. A lot of people use Google Maps to find businesses more than directions.
funny, somehow we managed to have these things before chrome became basically two orders of magnitudes exploded. are you seriously defending the size of chrome as rational? we are talking verbosity to the levels that even claude would be jealous of
Because of their enshitification we do have alternatives that were developed.
At this point the their only services I'm using are Maps, Translate and Keep Notes and it is mostly due to lazyiness as all of those already have alternatives.
Edit: forgot about YouTube, which is ironic, because that one is a toughest one because the value comes from creators, but I'm doing my part and using GrayJay[1] so I can follow them if they switch their platform.
dont see how its bullying? someone is demonstrating a very childish point of view , almost to the point of preaching. which I would say a little bit of critical thinking says is otherwise. why else would so many want xcancel in the first place?
I think typically the term "Far" is meant to denote where it lies on political spectrum, and has fairly well understood typical brew of populist/authoritarian/nationalistic/xenophobic, with themes of strength, unity, and focus on "in" and "out" groups
It does not mean fringe or rare or low-in-numbers - unfortunately, "far right politics" have frequently been in the majority in our history and will certainly be again :-/
I have a feeling that the majority of AFD voters simply want some kind of change and action on what they are seeing happen in Germany. I'm definitely not one of them, (and being an auslander myself I have skin in this game) -- this is a failure of the other parties more than it's a victory for AFD. But then again, that's all it takes really.
See, this sort of thing is exactly is why they're going to continue to make progress. This attitude of painting all of them with the same brush and calling them nazis exactly is the thing that creates more nazis.
You're the problem here. I'm not on the side of the AFD, never will be -- and let me be clear: I and my family are directly impacted if they take power.
I don't think calling literal nazis nazis is a problem, my point, if you read it properly is that shutting down the (reasonable or not) concerns of a big chunk of the population and calling them all nazis only makes them more extreme, and grows their power. We need a better way.
In normal English, it would be from the average (median) voter. A party is "far-right" (or "far-left") if it is substantially to the right (left) of the average voter.
Assume that people vote for the person/party closest to their own view on an issue. 44% of voters choose the far-right candidate, meaning 44% of voters are closer to the far-right candidate than any other option.
How can this happen? Several ways, but only one is realistic: the other candidates are even farther away (to the left or right) from the position of the median voter. 40%+ of voters are themselves "far-right".
> The Nazi party got 37% of votes nationwide (not just in one state).
The Nazi party was not that far to the right of the median German voter at the time.
The far-left is using scary words ("Nazi", "Far-right", etc.) to tar a group they dislike (see what I did there?) They are counting on the fact that most voters can be influenced by group-think and name-calling. They are probably correct. But this is Hacker News, and the people here ought to be smart enough to see this for the stupid political smear that it obviously is. If you don't like a party, make the case that their policy is wrong. If vague analogy to the Nazis is the best argument you have, then you have no argument at all.
That comparison is depressingly applicable. The National Socialists gained power in a period when both the present and future looked very bleak to a large fraction of German voters, and a whole succession governments formed by political mainstream figures had demonstrated that they couldn't do squat to really fix things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Renewed_crisis...
If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II had not done such a comprehensive job of discrediting hereditary nobility, it might be healthier if German voters had the option to replace their elected government with a ruling Kaiser for 4 or 5 years. Ideally, that would lessen the appeal of more-extreme political parties. And the threat of indefinite irrelevance (the Kaiser could be reelected) might even motivate the politicians to occasional competence.
This is exactly the arrogant narrative that pushes more people to vote for AfD. It’s the people’s right to vote for any party they want and that’s part of the democratic process.
Labelling or bullying people because they have exercised their right and calling them Nazis is not gonna make them change their mind at all.
After all who are you or anyone else to say that what other person has voted is right or wrong. You can have your opinion, but you cannot judge them
I'm calling the AfD Nazis because that's exactly what they are.
Of course when people vote for a Nazi party, that's extremely alarming, and I have every right to say that they're wrong to do so.
If the AfD comes to power in Germany, it will be a disaster for the country, and not only for the country. Germany tried fascism once before in its history, and we all know how that turned out.
I wasn't specifically speaking of Afd, but overall general direction of the term used by media. How many people who are moderate and haven't changed their views on things moved from moderate to being labeled as far right.
Anyway this topic shouldn't even be on HN. The story will likely be flagged soon.
> Anyway this topic shouldn't even be on HN. The story will likely be flagged soon.
We are building a literal surveillance state tech dystopia funded by the sorts of VCs that employ a lot of the people in this site and you think that news about who will have control over this and what they plan to do with it is off-topic?
- Removed and blacklisted it from the Arch Linux Wiki, Arch repos, The Debian repos and a bunch of other distributions as well to start out with, blacklisting the developer from the FreeDesktop
i think its reasonable that people who sell computer monitors also demand you purchase a computer or other output device from them. Why do you feel differently here? after all, a computer monitor needs a computer or other output device to work, no?
At highway speed, yes. But it's mostly cities where the complaints are. And at sane city speeds engine noise predominates.
And at highway speed the exceptions like Harley's and glass-packs and high rpm super cars are the problem. It's not the steady whoosh of tire noise that wakes you up in the middle of the night.
Often by design (either the manufacturer or the rider swapping to a louder exhaust) there isn't any reason they can't be quieter and many of them are off the forecourt.
The common argument you run into why people make them loud is its for "safety" but that's always felt like a thin excuse to justify "hey, look at me!" loud exhausts.
Yes, I've owned motorcycles, I commuted using one to work for years, no it been "quiet" didn't make it any less safe.
I do occasionally think about getting another one but the animus simply isn't there any more, I think if I needed transport these days I'd just get a car, for commuting a motorcycle was brilliant (it's legal in the UK to lane split which in heavy rush hour traffic is a real time saver) and they are cheaper to run but in every other way it was strictly worse than a car.
I don't have a link but I recall that someone did a study that revealed that there was no safety improvement from loud exhaust and the only way to improve motorcycle safety was increasing visibility with high-visibility vests.
In my state there are no helmet laws so I always find it amusing that the "loud pipes save lives" crew are the same who wear no helmets or any other protective gear.
When I commuted I wore full high viz motorcycle specific textiles (jacket/trousers), proper boots and a helmet with the highest safety rating (on the SHARP system), as with everything in life you can mitigate the risk (in the case of a motorcyle by riding sensibly and appropriate equipment), you can't remove it and riding a motorcycle is inherently more risky compared to other forms of commuting not least because you are sharing the road with much bigger/much heavier vehicles and you are rare enough that a lot of drivers just don't consider Motorcyles - hell one of our road safety campaigns literally had the slogan "Think! Bike".
Never had an off (riding on the road, many times offroad but that's different), had two near misses - one was sand/crap on the road and the front end started to go and the other was a lady pulling straight out into the road from a blind exit (literally a hole in the wall completely blocking her view), I'd gone past that many times on the way home from work and I always slowed down because I'd flagged it as a "yeah, that's just dangerous" so I had time to stop just, she was very apologetic but that wouldn't have helped me much after I'd ploughed into and over her car.
I enjoyed riding motorcycles but they were always fundamentally a tool to me to get from A to B, my friends who ride strictly for pleasure and much less safely have way more crashes (in one case one of them wrote off two bikes in six weeks...).
I disagree with the way they ride and didn't ride with them even when I had a bike, there are literally track days for that stuff, keep it off the public highway where you risk hurting other people for your "fun".
>the only way to improve motorcycle safety was increasing visibility with high-visibility vests.
Mind you, that's also putting the blame on bikers partly. Of course it helps, and not splitting lanes like a dumbass at high speeds makes you safer, but the core threat to bikers is, fundamentally, cars & trucks. Being better drivers and being safer is the best way to protect others.
reply