>> He eventually got bored. He retired and joined a seminary.
Wow, got bored and joined a seminary - Do you know how does he feel there? A genuine question - Did he expect to get excited and challenged in a seminary?
I think a better way to think about it is that humans in general just make so many mistakes and imperfect judgements. Smart people just do them slightly less.
Smart people also typically have biases as well which affects their judgement, their basis are just more complicated than normal people.
Like obviously being smart is an advantage for any decision, but saying if someone smart does something it must be smart makes no sense in a world where smart people usually can’t agree on what is right.
it's a pretty good guess that when a smart person does something like this, it's something he considered long and hard and applied his full smartness to, and therefore it is probably the smart move. Right? Let's not split hairs.
A good quote. I didn’t mean the question as “atheist vs believer argument”, but rather as an environment where ideas are accepted and flourish. Because I understood the parent comment: “He eventually got bored.” as "He got bored by the corporate environment not getting his ideas and thus went to a better organization in that regard."
So now, how was he, the one with brilliant and unorthodox ideas, got accepted in an institution like seminary? How he felt having arguments there, etc. …
well, they are known for being places to discuss theology all day. Theology isnt that far from philosophy, it's certainly interesting enough to talk about
One can legally use/static-link OpenCV in most commercial projects, and there were only a few legal landmines people still try to document when possible.
However, until each code area turns 17/21 no one knows for sure. It just looks normal at first, and $12k cheaper than MatLab server host licenses. =3
There is a CLI photogrammetry OSS project with rather litigious faculty members behind the code. However, at least that group was upfront about what was expected of the library users, and didn't do something dodgy like quietly merge it into another community library like OpenCV.
I discovered that while porting it to a Pi ARM platform years ago (yes it was slow... lol.) Forgot when the IP becomes public domain, but you might want to check that out.
If I recall it was unrelated to the COLMAP project design. =3
Personally, I recommend COLMAP + CloudCompare + MeshLab, but the Mozilla Public License 2.0 should address IP license issues if the author is also the rights holder. Keep in mind all work done by University Students and Staff is often property of the institution unless otherwise stated. It is a delicate subject.
Well, kind of but also not fully. Yes for the "global" frontpage, but for the /show list, your submission can stay on the "front" there for almost a full week, and with proper discussions already establish the first day or two, you still get valuable insights after days, even after it drops off.
But I think that requires eager participating from the submitter as well, not just drop your project and not replying to anyone, or not replying with an open mind/required perspective.
>for the /show list, your submission can stay on the "front" there for almost a full week
Good to know this and yes, ShowHN gathers more discussions with the author. One question: is it still true, that a submission can stay for days on /show for days? I read here recently that with the LLM trend of creating software /show became very overcrowded.
As of writing this comment, this is item #30 (last) on /show:
> Show HN: Live Sun and Moon Dashboard with NASA Footage (lumara-space.app) - 222 points by beeswaxpat 5 days ago | flag | 70 comments
So yeah, definitively possible for it to stick around multiple days. Maybe not a full week anymore like it used to in the past, but still a long time. Conversations and engaged discussions can continue past that too, as authors check for replies then reply themselves, and so on.
The OP Blog post is comparing web versions vs applications. Both on the phone. And arguing that browser representation is often better than app functionality. Using desktop vs small screen phone is a different matter.
It sounds like the more accurate framing, then, is "I'm not getting a tax break for having an EV". Which is disappointing sure, but not outrageous either.
That's the framing but it's also misleading. We are being charged more than a typical ICE driver would pay in gasoline tax. It's also listed as being for road maintenance, but in fact it goes into the general revenue, so it has nothing to do with road maintenance.
Alberta is imposing a charge on EV registrations, and they increased it again this year. At some point I'm hoping courts curtail their attempt at imposing gas cars but given how Canadian courts are hamstrung at obvious human rights issues in places like Quebec, I doubt they will do anything about Alberta either.
The issue is not paying our fair share, the issue is paying more than we would if we drove gas vehicles. They assume we drove X miles (I’m in Washington state) and that is not even close to what I actually drive (it’s much less, I could game it if I drove more than the C miles they compute the fee on, but I don’t need to drive that much).
Are you seriously comparing the number of people? That's silly. It's the amount paid per person. You pay so much in gas, I pay so much for my EV. For the same amount of driving, I am paying more than you do. That's the problem.
The issue is not paying our fair share, the issue is paying more than we would if we drove gas vehicles.
Perhaps in Washington State that is your issue, but that is not what we are discussing here.
The poster I was replying to lives in Alberta, and your experience in an entirely different country, in that state, has nothing to do with what they pay. Or whether what they pay is fair. And this point was not raised as a concern by the original poster.
Their only concern was paying any tax at all. Their concern was paying for road maintenance costs, period.
So about 50 cents per litre for both federal and provincial gas tax, which disappears if you charge at home. And yes, the federal tax counts, as the federal government transfers funds to the provinces from that tax, and to municipalities, and also gives additional grants to municipalities from that tax.
All which vanishes without a gas tax.
So that's around 1/3 to 1/2 of the price you pay at the pump.
Municipalities also sometimes add additional tax.
All said?
A good average for gas tank size might be 50 litres. Gas prices are typically over $1.20 / litre. So maybe $70 per fillup, which seems fair. Let's just pick $30 in tax per fillup.
I'm being generous here, as most EVs are as heavy as a truck, and cause more road damage than a gas car. And I'll also be more generous, and just say $20 per fillup in lost tax.
This figure, $20, is way below the actual lost tax. I expect this to be more like $50 lost per fillup, with the above logic (weight of vehicle, use of taxes, local taxes).
So with this extremely generous number of $20 per fillup, a yearly registration of $200, is the same as 10 tanks of gas of travel per year.
Or less than one fillup per month for a gas car.
This is obviously meant to be an average, and there are people which drive 200km per day. Others may almost never drive, but that's how averages work.
I have a very, very hard time seeing this as unfair.
I feel it is very, very low compared to what is collected from the gas tax currently.
The only other option is to have odometers inspected yearly, and a tax levied on actual distance driven. In as the tax is very very very generous, and only 40% of what I suspect the actual loss to be, very very very low at $200, few would be better off with a tax on actual distance driven.
Not to mention, a yearly inspection would have additional costs (re: taxes) for the whole administrative framework to do so.
All in all, Albertans seem to be paying far less than people driving gas cars, in tax.
But of course, you did the math before complaining about Alberta flat gas tax, right?
So if so, what is your complaint with this flat tax?
That some people might be buying at $50k CDN car, and only drive it less than 400km per month, and so unfairly pay? Because that's the equivalent tax being levied here.
I'll be very blunt. I find such complaints to be frivolous.
It will be unfair one way or the other. Washington state has a high gas tax by American standards (60 cents a gallon) but I only drive around 30 miles per week. I would need one tank of gas a month on my previous ICE car, and the gas tank took 13 gallons, so I was paying around $100/year in gas taxes. I pay $250/year surcharge for having an EV, so I’m definitely paying more (my EV is a compact rather than a sub-compact I had before, so I would lose some mileage there, although not enough to make such a huge difference).
I get it though, other people pay less. It really should be by mileage and weight, but privacy advocates blow a gasket when someone proposed to track vehicle mileage either in real-time or through yearly odometer gauge checks.
Reducing carbon emissions most certainly is a human rights issue. I absolutely can not breathe when I go to large cities. I live in a village, drive an electric, and charge it from rooftop solar.
You actually can breath in "large cities", unless you have a pre-existing health condition. Otherwise, all the people in those "large cities" would already be dead, and they'd cease being "large cities". Or at least, populated ones.
"Carbon emissions" is a human rights issue, just as 1000 other things are. Whether "reducing" carbon emissions is determined to be a right is not black and white as of yet.
Regardless, leveling a road tax has nothing to do with that. It is merely a tax to be inline with what everyone else pays. You may as well say you have a right to a free electric car too, or maybe a right to get 50% off.
You do realise the roads have to be maintained, yes? And that's what the tax on gas is for, yes? I assure you, endless environmentalists which don't drive anything at all, and see the construction of roads as an annoyance, would be upset at the idea of cars, any type of car, electric or otherwise, as bad. And are very upset at any sort of car being subsidized to increase adoption.
But of course, because you own an electric car, it's now a human rights issue that you get to pay less. Right?
I may have exaggerated. In large cities the air is significantly less comfortable to breathe.
> because you own an electric car, it's now a human rights issue that you get to pay less. Right?
No, why would you think that? It is only fair that electric car users, myself included, pay for the proportional damage and wear to the roads.
Now tell me why the polluting carbon-burning vehicles don't have a separate tax to repair the damage they do to the environment, e.g. climate change? How much would that tax cost?
reply