You know, it probably is confirmation bias, being honest. Though the culture could be terrible. But I honestly for the life of me cannot remember the last time I ever saw a biker stop at a stop sign, or a light. Though I do remember a hand turn signal a time or two though.
Like, a lot of their behavior seems to be centered around gaining respect and focusing on having car drivers defer to bikes, while bikes slough off responsibility and behave dangerously.
For example, bike lanes. I, as a person who primarily drives a car, believe that what should happen is that the curb should be extended into the road, and bike lanes put up, on the curb, next to the sidewalk. If the goal is mitigating harm in the event of accident, then placing bikes beyond the curb will be the safest movement, rather than having them be a dedicated lane literally in the road. Having them be, ideally, up on the curb in their own dedicated lane is the safest solution we can come up with. The second, is that if there is no dedicated lane, they should be on the sidewalk not on the street.
We can do the math on collisions. A soft body going under 15 miles per hour with high alertness and high reaction time (a biker) is less likely to collide with another soft body going under 5 miles per hour with high alertness and high reaction time (a pedestrian), and if they do happen to collide, the injury will be very minimal.
But a soft body going under 15 miles per hour colliding with a 2 ton metal machine going 30 mph with lower reaction time (a car) is going to be more likely and lead to far more intense injuries for the biker.
But for some reason bike advocates don't want the safer option, they want to be in the road. They want to be in the road with the cars while cars give them deference and while also completely ignoring traffic laws that vehicles on the road are meant to be following, including them.
I live in a large metro area, and I have not once seen a biker follow any kind of traffic laws. They don't stop at stop signs, they don't indicate turns, they don't even stop at stop lights. They swerve out of the bike lane, into the crosswalk so that they can count as 'pedestrians' and then swerve back into the bike lane once they've gotten to the other side.
And given that, legally speaking, if there is any collision between my car and a biker, I am automatically considered at fault because I'm operating a motor vehicle, I want there to be as little chance of that as possible.
Like, I've got a long rant going here, but don't get me wrong, what I want is for my town to be safer for bicycle travel, and for all of us to reduce our dependency on cars for travel, but when I see the way bikers behave it makes it hard for me to believe that that's what they want.
The biggest road block getting in the way of bike activism and expanded safety and spread of non-car transportation is the bike activists themselves behaving inconsistently and demanding strange, contradictory rulesets and concessions.
But we would likely infer what the answer is because we can see what the person means for us to read, just like we can see from the original question that the person writing it means for it to be a set up to show this fun little paradox that we all enjoy.
Then we get into language as presented and language as intended and concepts around communication having the purpose of conveying an idea and all of that fun linguistic conversation!
So, syntactically speaking "My" question vs "this" question doesn't actually change anything about the example that I'm making. If making my example analogy closer to the question in the picture will help you understand the point, I can do that too, no worries.
So, let us word it like this then
"Is the answer to this question a bear, a moose, a lion, or a tiger?"
The question fails before it reaches the stage where an answer is chosen, because the question is not formatted correctly. It is nonsensical to attempt to determine which of the four animals is the answer to the question, because the question is a nonsense question.
In the same way, while it is a clever way to set up a question to imply a paradox, while it is a very fun way to contemplate how the answer might change given how the 'correct' answer changes based on which answer you choose; the reality of the situation is that the question actually fails before reaching the 'choose an answer' stage of the problem, because the self-referential language makes the question itself nonsensical.
I am a native English speaker with a very good comprehension of the language.
So let's walk through the logic then, follow me on this one.
I walk up to you and ask
"What is the answer to my question?"
I claim you have been given full information as to what the question is, and you are able to knowingly answer it without saying "I don't know" or "What question?"
The question asks "What is the likelihood that you will give the correct answer to this question?" But does not detail the question that it is asking.
As a hypothetical, if I came up to you and said
"What is the answer to my question?"
There are a number of ways you could answer, such as saying "What question?" Or even just "I don't know". But the fact of the matter is that you cannot give a knowledgeable answer in earnest because the question I gave you is malformed and lacking information.
Like, I get the point of the question pictures, it's a very funny "haha look at this mathematical conundrum, isn't that pretty funny guys?" And it's a good question for that
But I guess I'm just being a buzzkill by saying that technically none of these answers is correct because the premise of the question itself relies on a language error. Idk
We have one program that does A and B and C and D and E. But for some reason we use it for A and C, but not B and D and E. We don't really do B or E, but we do D and we do that with just spreadsheets and emails.
and then upper management signs us up for a different website and app and thing that everyone has to sign up and make accounts and do training in order to figure out, and this company is handling B for us.
Then they see another new shiny thing and we have to do all of it over again and it's supposed to handle D, which we were already handling in another way, but now have to learn this new way.
And then upper management just fuckin' Mommy Blogs their way into a third and a fourth and a fifth website, service, app, sign up, program, AI, bullshit that we all have to make accounts for, learn how to use, and spam all of our emails, so now we have different services for each thing, A through E, and we're all screaming "why are you doing this?"
Why couldn't we just use the original program that did all of these things?
It honestly reminds me of when I was really little and my mom would hear these 'mom tips' on how to organize chore charts or incentive programs for us as little kids to get us to clean our rooms. Every summer, sometimes twice a summer, she'd sit us all down super duper excited, eyes sparkling, and go "Okay, family, this is how we're running everything from now on. Like this is how our entire family is gonna do this. This is what we're all about now." and then explain some convoluted points system.
It'd last for like two weeks and then we'd go back to just doing what we wanted to do, until Mom got sparkles in her eyes and chased another ineffective system.
Sascha Riley yeah
Battle monster Sonnie from Sonnie's edge.
You know, it probably is confirmation bias, being honest. Though the culture could be terrible. But I honestly for the life of me cannot remember the last time I ever saw a biker stop at a stop sign, or a light. Though I do remember a hand turn signal a time or two though.
I think those are a lot of good points
I could definitely do that, and I probably should.
Also, haha, curb your frustration.
Like, a lot of their behavior seems to be centered around gaining respect and focusing on having car drivers defer to bikes, while bikes slough off responsibility and behave dangerously.
For example, bike lanes. I, as a person who primarily drives a car, believe that what should happen is that the curb should be extended into the road, and bike lanes put up, on the curb, next to the sidewalk. If the goal is mitigating harm in the event of accident, then placing bikes beyond the curb will be the safest movement, rather than having them be a dedicated lane literally in the road. Having them be, ideally, up on the curb in their own dedicated lane is the safest solution we can come up with. The second, is that if there is no dedicated lane, they should be on the sidewalk not on the street.
We can do the math on collisions. A soft body going under 15 miles per hour with high alertness and high reaction time (a biker) is less likely to collide with another soft body going under 5 miles per hour with high alertness and high reaction time (a pedestrian), and if they do happen to collide, the injury will be very minimal.
But a soft body going under 15 miles per hour colliding with a 2 ton metal machine going 30 mph with lower reaction time (a car) is going to be more likely and lead to far more intense injuries for the biker.
But for some reason bike advocates don't want the safer option, they want to be in the road. They want to be in the road with the cars while cars give them deference and while also completely ignoring traffic laws that vehicles on the road are meant to be following, including them.
I live in a large metro area, and I have not once seen a biker follow any kind of traffic laws. They don't stop at stop signs, they don't indicate turns, they don't even stop at stop lights. They swerve out of the bike lane, into the crosswalk so that they can count as 'pedestrians' and then swerve back into the bike lane once they've gotten to the other side.
And given that, legally speaking, if there is any collision between my car and a biker, I am automatically considered at fault because I'm operating a motor vehicle, I want there to be as little chance of that as possible.
Like, I've got a long rant going here, but don't get me wrong, what I want is for my town to be safer for bicycle travel, and for all of us to reduce our dependency on cars for travel, but when I see the way bikers behave it makes it hard for me to believe that that's what they want.
Honestly, if you told me bike lobbyists were putting in spoilers to advocate for nonsense instead of clear common sense solutions I would believe you.
That's totally fair. I feel like it's gonna be worth it.
The biggest road block getting in the way of bike activism and expanded safety and spread of non-car transportation is the bike activists themselves behaving inconsistently and demanding strange, contradictory rulesets and concessions.
I'm honestly so hyped for this game
Oh and happy cake day btw
Syntactically speaking yes, exactly.
But we would likely infer what the answer is because we can see what the person means for us to read, just like we can see from the original question that the person writing it means for it to be a set up to show this fun little paradox that we all enjoy.
Then we get into language as presented and language as intended and concepts around communication having the purpose of conveying an idea and all of that fun linguistic conversation!
So, syntactically speaking "My" question vs "this" question doesn't actually change anything about the example that I'm making. If making my example analogy closer to the question in the picture will help you understand the point, I can do that too, no worries.
So, let us word it like this then
"Is the answer to this question a bear, a moose, a lion, or a tiger?"
The question fails before it reaches the stage where an answer is chosen, because the question is not formatted correctly. It is nonsensical to attempt to determine which of the four animals is the answer to the question, because the question is a nonsense question.
In the same way, while it is a clever way to set up a question to imply a paradox, while it is a very fun way to contemplate how the answer might change given how the 'correct' answer changes based on which answer you choose; the reality of the situation is that the question actually fails before reaching the 'choose an answer' stage of the problem, because the self-referential language makes the question itself nonsensical.
Is that clearer?
I am a native English speaker with a very good comprehension of the language.
So let's walk through the logic then, follow me on this one.
I walk up to you and ask
"What is the answer to my question?"
I claim you have been given full information as to what the question is, and you are able to knowingly answer it without saying "I don't know" or "What question?"
How do you answer?
The question asks "What is the likelihood that you will give the correct answer to this question?" But does not detail the question that it is asking.
As a hypothetical, if I came up to you and said
"What is the answer to my question?"
There are a number of ways you could answer, such as saying "What question?" Or even just "I don't know". But the fact of the matter is that you cannot give a knowledgeable answer in earnest because the question I gave you is malformed and lacking information.
Like, I get the point of the question pictures, it's a very funny "haha look at this mathematical conundrum, isn't that pretty funny guys?" And it's a good question for that
But I guess I'm just being a buzzkill by saying that technically none of these answers is correct because the premise of the question itself relies on a language error. Idk
The answer is null because the question references information that we don't have. It can't be answered.
It's been four hours I'm checking in to see at what point you realized that all of these people are messing with you.
God it's like Marceline the Vampire Queen ate it
I love your glasses! And the way you've done your hair up!
This is currently happening at my job.
We have one program that does A and B and C and D and E. But for some reason we use it for A and C, but not B and D and E. We don't really do B or E, but we do D and we do that with just spreadsheets and emails.
and then upper management signs us up for a different website and app and thing that everyone has to sign up and make accounts and do training in order to figure out, and this company is handling B for us.
Then they see another new shiny thing and we have to do all of it over again and it's supposed to handle D, which we were already handling in another way, but now have to learn this new way.
And then upper management just fuckin' Mommy Blogs their way into a third and a fourth and a fifth website, service, app, sign up, program, AI, bullshit that we all have to make accounts for, learn how to use, and spam all of our emails, so now we have different services for each thing, A through E, and we're all screaming "why are you doing this?"
Why couldn't we just use the original program that did all of these things?
It honestly reminds me of when I was really little and my mom would hear these 'mom tips' on how to organize chore charts or incentive programs for us as little kids to get us to clean our rooms. Every summer, sometimes twice a summer, she'd sit us all down super duper excited, eyes sparkling, and go "Okay, family, this is how we're running everything from now on. Like this is how our entire family is gonna do this. This is what we're all about now." and then explain some convoluted points system.
It'd last for like two weeks and then we'd go back to just doing what we wanted to do, until Mom got sparkles in her eyes and chased another ineffective system.