In Japan it's quite reasonable to ride local trains. I've been meaning to do a trip along the recently re-opened Tadami Line [1], for example. The one way cost for the full 4-hour, 135km trip is only ¥2,750 ($17).
Though when you add in the costs of getting to the start/end of the line, overnight accomodations, and potentially the cost of getting to Japan first - it gets quite a bit more expensive. But staying at a little guesthouse along the way is also part of the charm.
Looks beautiful and I am filled with an instant sense of nostalgia looking at the screenshots.
Personally if I were going to adopt a nerdy train hobby, I would tend more toward train photography. Recently train photographers have been in the news for mostly bad reasons [1], but I have also seen train photographers setting up in rural locations and the scenery looks stunning and also totally chill. The problems arise when people gather en masse to get the "iconic" shots that have been probably been photographed a million times before.
Or just go out and actually ride a bunch of different routes. It's been a long time since I've done it, but just riding a local or express train through a scenic area is delightful.
Of course there's no reason that true train afficianados can't do all of the above, as well as building model trains!
One thing that always bugs me at work is when I get a slack message from someone I don't know along the lines of:
"Hello John, are you available to chat later today about Foo Product?"
Or sometimes just:
"Hello John"
I know they want something from me, but I have no idea what, how much effort it will require, how urgent it is, or whether I am even capable of helping.
A much better approach is more like this article outlines:
"Hello John. I'm looking into in a client-reported issue with Foo Product. The customer states they are unable to do X. The support ticket is <link to ticket>. I've done some investigation and think I have identified the root cause with <possible root cause>. Are you available for a brief 30 minute call this afternoon to discuss the issue as well as some potential fixes?"
That way I have some idea of context, priority, and what they are looking for from me. I can also review the details of the ticket prior to the call, which makes for a more productive conversation. Or if there is someone else who is more knowledgeable than me, I can request that we add that person as well.
If you're in the habit of starting work conversations on slack with just "Hello" - I would highly recommend that you start including additional context when initially reaching out.
For anyone looking to try this - while they sell pre-bottled mugicha [1], I highly recommend making your own from tea bags [2].
It's incredibly easy to make - just add cold water and let it sit in the fridge for a couple hours. It also tastes so much better (in my opinion), is much cheaper, and is more environmentally friendly.
A big 2L thermos filled with mugicha and ice is a great way to stay cool in the summer.
And "takeoff and landing were imperceptible to the senses" is quite an exaggeration for both the 747 and A380. They are nice to fly, but takeoff and landings are definitely perceptible. Unless the author was black-out drunk for both takeoff and landing.
IMO the author kind of opened themselves up to it when they said:
> And still, in my life here in the United States, words are still needed to convey meaning.
As if the US doesn’t have easily identifiable police and firefighters. Or handicap placards/license plates. Or public transportation logos (such as the NY MTA logo).
I think Japan does a pretty good job with signage in general and some of it is interesting to read about. Some things like the newbie sticker might be worth adopting elsewhere. Other things like the old people sticker might be considered age discrimination in other countries.
But framing it like only Japan knows how to use symbols or “read the air” is just dumb.
> Use your rearview mirror, check your blind spots, and use your directional signals when changing lanes. Remember these three steps: (1) look, (2) signal, (3) move
To me this means you don't signal until it's actually safe to merge. E.g. if a car is passing me at high speed, I wouldn't turn on my signal until after they had passed. If I did it before they pass, they might think my intent is to merge in front of them, and slam on their brakes, move into a different lane, etc.
In Japan [2] the process is 1) check rearview and side mirrors, 2) turn on blinker at least 3 seconds before turn, 3) while the blinker is on, do a shoulder check for blind spots 4) merge, 5) flash your hazards 2-3 times to thank the driver who let you merge.
So you're also checking for safety before signaling. Step 5 isn't actually required by the way but it's quite common and a nice touch I think.
These are of course cases where you have the option of moving into a faster lane at your discretion. If your lane is coming to an end, you should probably signal well before the end of the lane (although I would still wait to get up to speed before signaling).
I think if you're waiting for them to actually start to change langes before responding, then you're leaving too much up to chance. Because if you go to pass them they might start to merge when you no longer have any safe options available - either because they didn't see you, they misjudged, they're just an a-hole, etc. There are a lot of unpredictable drivers out there.
I think the safest thing - and the most polite - is when they first start to signal, make a determination if you are able to safely give them space by easing off the gas and maybe lightly tapping the brakes (of course you don't want to do any hard braking because that creates a risk of being rear-ended). And if the answer is yes, then let them merge. If you're traveling at a safe speed, leaving a safe distance to the car in front of you, and assuming they signal about the time the car in front of you passes them, this should be doable more often than not.
> Suppose the car in lane 1 is going slower because they just merged from a left-side entrance ramp.
Just to clarify, my original post was more about merging from a faster lane of travel into a slower lane, or where both lanes are traveling at about the same speed.
When merging into a faster lane I agree the slower moving car should wait for a suitable opening before signaling and merging. And there are cases where it is safer to pass a car with its blinker on than to slam on the brakes.
But also in general it's unsafe to be traveling at a large speed differential to the lane next to you. And a lot of times even though people probably could ease up a bit to make space for another car, and it would be safer to do so, they don't.
Also really strange to me to be prioritizing fuel economy over safety.
And anyway, it's more fuel efficient to leave a big enough buffer with the car in front of you so that if they slow down, you can just take your foot off the accelerator to match speed rather than braking. And increase speed again slowly when they speed up (again leaving a healthy gap). For anyone driving a hybrid or EV especially much of those losses can be recovered with regenerative braking.
The other thing is that in places where people use turn signals properly, it's customary to signal a few seconds before you turn (where I live the law is to signal at least three seconds before changing lanes). That gives people plenty of time to ease off the accelerator and make space without needing to hit the brakes.
I also can't comprehend how if you're "scared" by someone signaling when you are in their blind spot, the best course of action could be to put yourself directly in their path vs giving a little extra space to safely merge.
I think the more likely explanation is just that this anti-social behavior has been normalized in the North East. And drivers are either oblivious to others around them, or have adopted the outright aggressive attitude that yielding to other drivers makes you a sucker.
To their credit, traffic fatalities do tend to be lower in the North East than the rest of the country on both a per-capita and per-mile-driven basis [1]. But I suspect it has more to do with other factors like lower speed limits than merging behavior. And this is supported by the fact that Massachusetts (and the most of New England) has the highest per-capita accident rate in the country [2].
So not only are you adding to each other's stress levels. You're also driving up insurance prices and contributing to traffic jams with more accidents.
> However I get the impression that other drivers are less considerate around a car displaying the [L] sign.
On a related theme - I have found when driving in the North Eastern US, when people put on their turn signal, other drivers will often speed up and close the gap rather than giving them space to merge.
I understood the article to mean, for example, that the help mark allows people on a train to signal "though I may not outwardly appear like I am disabled, I do have a need for priority seating". And thus people would (hopefully) offer up their seat without needing to be asked with words.
I don't think they meant that the symbols should be universally understood without need for explanation. That would be accomplished separately through some sort of public education campaign. In the case of the "help mark", they actually explain what it means in multiple languages in a big sign right above the priority seating [1].
I think that was actually Mr. Beast who said that [1]. The quote is also brought up in an interview with Rene Ritchie back when he was working for YouTube [2], and explaining what the algorithm does.
Old videos suddenly being heavily promoted again on YouTube is interesting. Sometimes there are obvious reasons, like this 6 year old video about the Straight of Hormuz that is recently making the rounds again [1]. Other times I think it's just the chaotic effects and constructive interference of 2.5 billion users interacting with 15 billion videos - like a rogue wave forming in the ocean.
There are two ways that I've noticed though that YouTube tends to consistently suggest older videos. One is when you first discover a new channel that you like and watch a few videos from that channel, YouTube will start recommending older videos from that channel until you've exhausted the back catalog (or lost interest).
The other way I've noticed is that when I hit the like button a video, YouTube will recommend it to me again after some time has passed. This also seems to depend on the type of video. Music videos are almost always recommended again after some time, while news videos almost never are.
I think these mechanisms are effective at driving traffic to older videos. If I look at my home page right now, most of it does tend to be newer content, but I'd estimate about 25% of it is more than a year old.
In response to your complaint about Berm Peak videos disappearing from your feed - obviously I don't know for certain, but is it possible that YouTube did suggest other Berm Peak videos after you watched a bunch of Reevo videos - but you didn't watch them? And that YouTube might have interpreted that as a lack of interest in the channel?
I've got a couple of channels that I consistently watch whenever they put out a new video. And I find that YouTube is really good about putting their videos at the top of my home page whenever a new video comes out.
Yup and he talks about how it was unsustainable, and how his priorities have shifted now that he has kids. He does mention the algorithm and the introduction of shorts as something he had to compete with - but mostly he just frames the bike park as an idea that has run its course and he has grown out of.
I have been riding a Panasonic "Gyutto" [1] for about 10 years. I bought it when I had young kids, as it's designed to hold two child seats (one on the back, and one on the handle bars). Now that they've grown up I've replaced the child seats with baskets and use it for commuting every day and grocery shopping.
The thing is an absolute tank - the only parts I've had replace are the tires and brake pads. And the design is really simple with all of the consumable parts being easy to replace. At about $1,400 USD, it's not cheap, but I'm shocked at how long it's lasted and how little maintanence it's needed.
Definitely not "cool" - but one of the best purchases I've ever made.
Click-through rates are indeed very important, but that's not all they optimize for. They are also looking at watch time, what you do after watching the video (do you watch more videos from the same creator, or on the same subject, something totally different, or do you leave the site), whether you interact with the video by liking or commenting, channels you have subscribed to, things you have searched for, etc.
And I think that when you spend a significant amount of time watching videos on a certain subject or from a certain channel - or when you repeatedly decline to watch videos of a certain type when they are suggested - you are signaling a very clear preference.
Are the videos the algorithm serves up something that people will "derive lasting benefit, memory or happiness from"? Probably not - but I also don't think that's what most people are looking for from YouTube. Sometimes, maybe, but more often they are just looking for mindless entertainment. Engaging with media on a deeper level requires effort. YouTube is where people go when even finding something to watch on Netflix is too much effort, let alone doing something healthy.
To keep this all in context - the parent comment was complaining that the algorithm doesn't promote videos of a guy building bike jumps in his back yard enough. I like Berm Peak - but is that something that most people would "derive lasting benefit, memory or happiness from"? No, it's not.
Anyone who hasn't seen those videos hasn't lost out on very much. And for anyone who has spent any amount of time watching videos about bicycles on YouTube - they probably have been recommended Berm Peak videos on numerous occasions. I know I have. The guy has 2.77 million subscribers and 787 million total views on his videos. Whether or not people actually watched the videos when suggested is more likely a matter of personal choice than the algorithm doing him dirty.
Is it the YouTube algorithm's fault? Or viewer preferences? I think YouTube would be happy to recommend the videos to more people if more people watched them.
I watch photography videos on YouTube, and camera review channels consistently have far more subscribers than channels who make content about taking photos. (Or at least they did in the past - in recent years camera tech has really matured and interesting releases are much less frequent, and reviewers seem to have taken a hit).
I think people just like gear. Should YouTube not show people what they like to see?
I've watched some Berm Peak videos in the past and I mostly know the channel for its videos about builds/repairs, or his video about the history of valves. The mountain biking videos are good too, but only hold my interest for so long. If I want to see mountain biking I'm more likely to look at some of the stuff Red Bull is putting out.
Though when you add in the costs of getting to the start/end of the line, overnight accomodations, and potentially the cost of getting to Japan first - it gets quite a bit more expensive. But staying at a little guesthouse along the way is also part of the charm.
[1] https://fukushima.travel/blogs/tadami-line-5-sights-you-shou...