I live a couple blocks from that intersection. It's a high traffic intersection due to its proximity to the I280 on/off ramp, that's currently a construction zone (flower market construction), where an east-west street with unprotected cycle lanes (17th street) T's into a north-south street with unprotected cycle lanes (Mississippi). If you sat there and watched that intersection for 10 min in the late afternoon, you'd wonder why there aren't even more accidents there.

I'd wait to see the video from the Waymo car before making any conclusions on who's at fault. The cyclist may very well have stopped. I'm imaging the cyclist was hidden from view by the truck, and both were taking a left turn onto Mississippi at the same time (as there's both an auto lane and a bike lane if i recall correctly)

I've noticed that the Waymo's have become more aggressive in their driving, they'll start pushing their way into intersections before an intersection is cleared. I assume this is because if they don't and patiently wait their turn, human drivers keep cutting them off..... so they've had to adapt? All speculation.

As somebody who presently lives 3 blocks from this, let me tell you, this "art" project is TACKY. It would work in Las Vegas, but the Bay Bridge is too dignified for this sort of crap. Can't wait for it to be removed.

Read the next line: "Compared to abstainers, those who drank 3 cups of caffeinated coffee daily were at increased risk of EG/EGS (RR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.09–2.54; P trend = 0.02)."

Still, given that there were 120,000 data points in this study, and they don't seem to be correcting for multiple comparisons, I would think a P of 0.02 is pretty weak.

And while the 3G may be listed as supported on iOS 4.2.1, it's so slow running this OS that realistically it's not supported...

Spoken by someone who clearly doesn't use RPN. The speed advantage of RPN doesn't come from the number of keystrokes needed (even though RPN does take fewer), but with the ability to enter the equation from left to right, start to finish, no matter how many embedded factors there are. While with non-RPN you must evaluate the equation to even know where to start entering and then keep track of where you are in your head.

Spoken by someone who clearly doesn't use modern non-RPN calculators. The speed advantage of conventional notation calculators comes from the ability to enter calculations froms start to finish exactly as they are written down on paper. No mental gymnastics required to translate what's written to what you need to punch into the calculator. And you can put the entire equation into one line, again, greatly simplying things.

Now, back in the day when calculators had only one line displays that could only display numbers, RPN was a great advantage. But in the modern age (meaning post ~1989 or so) calculators (like the TI-81) have multiple lines of display and can display the full set of alpha/numeric/symbols. So no need to keep track of anything in your head, it's entered in as written on the page, and displayed right there on the screen.

I try not to make such blanket statements on /., but I simply do not believe this. You may have had a friend at MIT, but there isn't any way a non-RPN calculator is as fast as an PRN calculator on any equation more complex than 2 + 2.

Well first off, I'll assume you're talking about a RPN calculator, and not a PRN calculator. Although a PRN (or pr0n) calculator would be very cool, I think it would make getting any real work done very difficult.

So why don't we go back in time together to the mid-90's, and you and I can hammer through some hard-core electrical engineering problem sets together. You can have an HP-48, I'll take a TI-81, and we'll see who wins at the 'ole plug-and-chug. What you probably haven't taken into account, is that you can't submit your problem set written out in RPN. So the time and errors that transpire in that back and forth translataion between the problem set and your calculator will more than compensate for what ever advantage in theory RPN may have.