As always this is grossly oversimplifying. As well as the misleading safety stats, as graemep has noted, it ignores that journeys just absolutely exploded under privatisation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail]
Graham Dennis (author of the article) absolutely does not ignore this. He regularly points out that Irish rail ridership exploded almost in lockstep with GB rail network growth despite remaining entirely publicly run. Even right at the top of this article he points out that the growth had begun long before privatisation. He goes into a lot more detail in his book.
Possible complicating factor is that at about the same time Irish Rail started experimenting with radical new concepts like having trains that were not from the early 1960s, and having more than one commuter line in the entire country. So possibly hard to read too much into it; there’s an argument that Irish journeys just went up because the system was becoming rapidly less terrible.
(I remember being amazed as a kid in the 90s on encountering a mainline train that had automatic doors. Irish Rail was pretty behind the times for a long time.)
The growth didn't happen long before privatization in the UK though. It turned around almost exactly when the privatization process started (which wasn't an immediate overnight event).
I'd argue that the upswing had started in the 1980s and took a hit along with the economy between black monday (87) and ERM2 crash/black wednesday (92)
The privatization took years however, it wasn't an overnight thing. A lot of the process was just writing down and professionalising a lot of aspects that were previously ad-hoc, so the benefits started before the precise date drawn on the graph. The law was passed in 1993 but preparations began before that, it was clear this was going to happen even in 1991.
That certainly happened, but at the same time the ticket prices have consistently gone up above inflation, so what we're missing is the causal link - why did journeys go up so much? Was it in fact other transport policy to get commuters out of cars?
Ticket prices going up is actually good for mass adoption. If they are too low, you will see people riding the train who are only using the train because they are too poor to afford a car. That makes middle class people want to avoid the train.
Also higher revenue often means better service, which for most people is more important than the price.
Having used the UK rail service both public and private the "better service" is optimistic.
The too poor to afford a car is more associated with buses. You need to be rather fortunate to be poor and able to use the train to get to work. Maybe in London using the tube but working office hours it will be cheaper to buy a car or move.
I would suggest the main driver in the leap in passenger numbers isnt the far superior private sector offering but instead the massive leap in house prices forcing people to move out of London.
I don’t think these points are accurate at all for people in the UK. There isn’t really a class divide, you ride trains in particular because it’s theoretically the most time efficient way to travel within metro areas and potentially across the country. Increased prices have not resulted in better service, and it’s purely a method to price gouge those who have no feasible travel alternatives.
You need to learn how to tell the difference between a syntax highlighted Markdown Python code block and Python that was passed through the Code Interpreter tool, but there is a visual difference. Executed Python displays on a black background.
It can definitely make up reasoning (including code) for how it got to an answer. However o3 can run python actually. I tried uploading an image and it ran a bunch of scripts to crop and change the brightness in an attempt to get a clearer view of various features.
I asked Perplexity (Pro, if it matters). Seems pretty solid to me. I'm not sure this article is making any point other than "the knowledge back of static artificial intelligence systems is finite and they don't express uncertainty well". Amusingly it links to this blog post, but you'll see the sources it uses are largely not this post.
---
The reassignment of Brachiosaurus brancai to its own genus occurred through a series of steps by different paleontologists:
## Initial Classification
In 1914, Werner Janensch first described the African species as Brachiosaurus brancai, considering it part of the existing Brachiosaurus genus[4].
## Path to Reclassification
Gregory S. Paul made the first step toward separation in 1988 by proposing a subgenus classification, Brachiosaurus (Giraffatitan) brancai, after noticing significant skeletal differences[4][10].
George Olshevsky then elevated Giraffatitan to full genus status in 1991, though this change was largely disregarded by the scientific community at the time[4][10].
## Formal Establishment
The definitive separation came in 2009 when Michael P. Taylor published a detailed study demonstrating 26 distinct osteological differences between the African and American species. This comprehensive analysis firmly established Giraffatitan as a separate genus, creating the combination Giraffatitan brancai[3][4]. From 2012 onward, most researchers have accepted this classification[10].
At no point in this long piece does the author seem to consider that people may be "woke" because they sincerely believe that they need to raise their and other people's awareness of prejudice or ways in which society puts people down. Instead it immediately assumes it's a liberal arts movement from those lefty universities.
Of course any cause or point can and likely will be distorted, and some will be performative. There are also, e.g. performative people who like to moan about lefties in universities, but this kind of low effort behaviour doesn't in itself undermine reasonable criticism about e.g. universities sometimes being too intolerant of free speech.
My point is this is fairly lazy. It starts assuming woke, which I note the author agrees is often used perjoratively (and therefore is surely used in a specific loaded way, in the same way if I call someone a piece of shit I'm not generally using it to praise the human body's ability to excrete waste effectively), is some performative nonsense and not wondering or being curious whether there's something useful or at least sincere underneath that.
This would all be fine if there was a bit more thoughtful distinction and critical appraisal of the author's work, and he wasn't treated with such uncritical reverence.
It’s the recency that bothers me the most. These aren’t veterans from “some distant time” where we’re merely trying to better understand history through the lens these people provided in their private effects, mostly donated by private individuals or museums.
These are people who still have young children today, people who’s widows may still be grieving. Now their parent’s or partner’s VA history is up for display, for people to use for whatever means they want? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Not GP, but no, these aren’t long dead people, but recently departed veterans with way too much information being disclosed than should be given the timeline.
I had to look it up (although I realise now that's what all the chemicals shown on Six Feet Under were about). Sadly as I get older I've been to many funerals here in the UK. Not one of them had an open display of the dead body. All but one of them was a cremation. Is embalming a very US thing or is it common elsewhere?
I think most people (60%) get cremated even in the USA these days, so it’s much less common than it was a few decades ago. Morticians usually run both since embalming doesn’t really support things anymore. In my state (WA), it’s around 80%, but it’s as low as 25% in MS.
N= 1 but I’ve attended funerals in Australia and Europe and never once encountered the open casket/embalmed body that seems so common on US TV and in movies.
I'm Australian and have been to exactly 1 open casket.
Soap box while I'm here: bodies do NOT need to be embalmed to have a viewing or open casket. If a funeral home is saying it's 'policy' to embalm for a viewing it is 99.9% of the time an internal/company policy and NOT a matter of law. Bodies kept cool without embalming are not stinky, discoloured, or dangerous, or any of the other reasons a funeral home will try to push for embalming. Yes there are exceptions, but they are few and they should all be explained to you in detail and you still have a choice! Prep methods for viewing (to keep eyes and mouth closed) can be done without embalming. You can take the body to a different funeral home at any point, so if you do end up at one refusing a viewing unless they're embalmed you really can go elsewhere. You also don't need a funeral home to have a viewing; you can do it at home as was custom (for ...millenia, I assume) until recently.
Not just TV. I think every funeral I’ve been to here in the US (a dozen? Two dozen?) had an open casket “viewing” before the funeral began. Very common. And I’ve not known anyone to get cremated, but that might just be the circle I run in.
Shared here because when watching it the first reason for her departure was the sterility of being on her own and not part of a work group since people increasingly work from home. It made me wonder how many other people have found this. I don't do anything remotely similar to YouTube videos, but I also find working on my own quite stifling
Hey all. I have been on HN for a very long time, and am generally in awe of the creativity and ideas. I created this site in part because HN inspires me; yes there can be criticism, but there are also amazing ideas and projects being shared.
I'm no coder, but I have read a lot of "don't think about it, do it" posts here. I love photography; I'm very average, but I like trying something new and late last year I realise I have a lot of lenses and I thought I should force myself to use each of them in 2024 and 'review' them. It's an excuse, as much as anything, to lean into the constraint that each lens uses. I can't remember what I was reading here when I had the idea, but I do remember it was one of those "Amazing demo in [tiny amount]KB" and it made me think how much joy there is in constraint and trying something different, just for the fun of it.
I also am posting here as I've read a lot of "just get on with it"; arguments against faffing with formatting and tweaking, and it was with this in mind that I've used a fairly standard template in Wordpress (where I don't really know what I'm doing) and just got on and taken pictures and written, and not mucked around too much. I'm ten (of about 36) lenses in now, and enjoying it. Comments, criticism and anything else greatly received.
I like it, as much as I am a Sony shooter with different tastes.
When I got my Sony a7ii I first though “the kit lens sucks categorically” then thought “wait, I took some really nice pictures with that lens” to “I gave it a try but I take better pictures with other lenses”
Lately I have been thinking about adding a long reach lens, like maybe the 24-70mm GM you mention but usually I pack something really long or really wide unless I am packing one of these
(I know I shoulda got the full frame) which is manual focus but takes pictures like you’ve never seen before which puts it above many lenses that cost 10x as much in some way.
Packing too much is a vice of mine so I can understand some of the appeal of more compact lenses but I’m not willing to give up any image quality for it.
To that end I like primes, this is one of my favorites
which in my mind is a very versatile lens that is great for portraits, served me well when I ran into a pan anti-war protest the other day, and makes it easy to make shots of flowers, dolls, and other small things that nobody will mistake for a smartphone snap. (Of course I think a 70-200mm is really versatile too.)
Lately I’ve gotten a few lenses with aperture rings (like that 7Artisans) and I am gaga for them. Last year I got into sports photography and got one of these
cause I was struggling with shooting volleyball
indoors. I would not say it is versatile but if you can get composition right it takes amazing basketball shots not to mention field sports if you can get close enough. I am still feeling like I could use something crazy long for (both kinds of) football but given what those kind of lenses cost I might settle for a teleconverter.
Oh crumbs you shouldn't have shown me that! I didn't know about the 90mm f/2.8 macro. It looks very nice. £614 second hand.....
One aspect I've loved of writing the reviews is some very cheap lenses (the Canon 135mm cost me very little second hand) take truly extraordinary pictures, and I don't think I'd have tried that lens if I hadn't had a go at this blog.
