prodigious reader, chronic forgetter
4615 stories
·
13 followers

Your Rage Won't Fix the Bike Lane - Streets.mn

2 Shares

There’s a specific kind of anger that lives in the space between almost getting hit and not getting hit. I know it well. I’ve felt it on Marshall Avenue climbing into Saint Paul, Summit Ave over and over, the bad part of Bryant Ave that is north of Lake Street. In Rochester where the bike lane just stops, mid-block, for no apparent reason (2nd Street headed east, Center Street headed west — I hate you both), and you’re suddenly just a person on a bicycle in a traffic lane hoping everyone behind you is paying attention. I’ve felt it on the narrow shouldered highways in the aptly named Dodge County, where the corn is too high to see around the curves and trucks blow past close enough that you feel the air move. In Duluth, where the hills are steep, the sight lines are short and punish-passes on a descent are a different kind of terrifying than a punish-pass on a flat road.

The anger is fast and bright and for a moment, the idea of yelling feels like cathartic justice.

And then you scream at the driver.

Maybe you catch them at the next light. Maybe you don’t and you yell into their exhaust anyway, because what else are you going to do with it? I’ve done both. Most of us have. I bike year-round — to work, to meetings, through February when the bike lanes are packed with tire-rut ice and the drivers are already irritable before anyone has done anything — and I’ve had more of these moments than I can count. I also spend a lot of time, as the communications manager for the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, thinking about how we talk to people who don’t already agree with us. And I keep coming back to the same problem with the screaming.

It feels good to yell at bad drivers. But it doesn’t do anything.

You’ve given them a story. They only know their side, and we’re all our own protagonist. They’ll tell it at dinner. They’ll tell it at work. They’ll pull it out every time someone brings up bike lanes and they need a reason to fold their arms. I had a cyclist scream at me once. That story will outlive the incident by years, building in self-righteousness, and somewhere downstream it becomes the anecdote a city council member hears when they’re already on the fence about a new bikeway.

Shame and aggression make people dig in. The driver who punish-passed you probably isn’t calculating malice — they’re running on a startle response, the same adrenaline you’re running on, they’re just behind two tons of steel. They’re scared or angry too. They are still behind the wheel of something that, in the wrong and sudden moment, becomes a weapon. Power asymmetry matters. Approaching a driver mid-adrenaline, at their window, is not always safe. But a large body of research shows that even a short interaction based in kindness can have effect dramatic changes in behavior

Most car operators genuinely don’t know what they don’t know. The driver who brushed past you on the county road shoulder probably has no idea that Minnesota law required them to leave at least three feet of clearance, and that they’re actually allowed to cross a double yellow to pass a cyclist when it’s safe to do so. The law gave them an out. They just never learned it existed, because driver education hasn’t kept up or they haven’t had to retest in decades.

Not an excuse. Merely a diagnosis.

A bikepacking trip in Southeastern Minnesota (Photo by author)

The Twin Cities cycling conversation can get insular. We fight over Hennepin Avenue and Marshall and Summit like those are the only streets in the state. They’re not.

I lived in Rochester for three years — all of which were intentionally car-lite or ‘mostly car free’. Rochester earned a Bronze-level Bicycle Friendly Community designation in 2010 and has held it since — the same Bronze, re-designated, for going on fifteen years. Which sounds reassuring until you try to bike to work across town on a Tuesday in November and discover that “bicycle friendly” and “safe” are doing completely different amounts of work in that sentence. The trail system is genuinely great — but it was built mostly for recreation, and it shows. Getting from the trail to your job, your grocery store, your kid’s school, still requires the kind of improvisation and geographic know-how that shouldn’t be necessary in a city that’s been designating itself bike-friendly since 2010 without really moving the needle.

And then there’s everywhere else. Through my day job, I learn about it constantly — riders in Mankato, Duluth, the river towns, the Heart of the Lakes region, the farming communities, people describing what it’s like getting passed on a roadway shoulder with no margin. Leave most downtowns behind and the bike infrastructure just stops — if there was any to begin with. The drivers out there aren’t worse people. They’ve just never been asked to think about this, and nothing in the built environment has asked it of them either.

The anger is the same everywhere. So is the futility of aiming it at individuals.

A bike rider having to inch past an illegally parked car that is all but blocking a bike lane in Rochester, MN (Photo by author)

Not every post-incident conversation is a bad idea. Some are worth having.

I’ve started doing something I think of as virtue-signal triage. A Prius. A small EV. A bumper sticker that suggests shared values. Specialty plates — the kind that tell you something about who this person wants to be. None of it is a guarantee, but it shifts the odds. The person behind the State Parks and Trails plate is more likely to be reachable in the thirty seconds you have at a red light than the person behind the blacked-out windows who just had both hands on the horn.

I had an interaction once that I still think about. An SUV with a Pollinator plate had just close-passed me after honking repeatedly. We ended up at a red light. I rolled up, knocked on the window, and instead of leading with what they’d done wrong I asked a question: did they know that in Minnesota, drivers are actually allowed to cross the center line — even a double yellow — to give a cyclist adequate space when it’s safe to do so? They didn’t. We talked for the length of that red light. They apologized, said they’d do better, and seemed to mean it.

That’s not the template for every encounter. Most can’t end that way, and the first question is always whether approaching is safe at all. A driver who is still furious, not looking at you — that is not a door you knock on. But a lot of what reads as hostility is actually ignorance in a hurry, and when both groups treat each other as adversaries, the chances of anything productive drop to nearly zero. The calm version of that conversation — “hey, that was pretty uncomfortable back there, huh? Just wanted to let you know that you can actually legally cross the center line to give us both enough safety” — doesn’t confirm the stereotype or accuse anyone of anything. It disrupts what they were probably expecting. Sometimes that’s enough.

BikeMN Executive Director Michael Wojcik speaking in favor of protected bike infrastructure at Rochester, MN City Council Meeting March 2nd, 2026 (Screenshot courtesy of City of Rochester)

Minneapolis passed its Complete Streets Policy, Vision Zero Action Plan, 2040 Plan, and Transportation Action Plan because people showed up to meetings and public comment periods and kept showing up. None of it happened because a cyclist yelled at a driver.

In Saint Paul, the updated Bicycle Plan that passed in April 2024 is a genuine win, especially paired with the sales tax for infrastructure. The Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition was in the room for years of drafts and public hearings, getting people to show up and speak at the moments that mattered. The plan exists because of that. And it will only be as good as the advocacy that follows it, because recent street reconstructions on Fairview and Prior came and went without meaningful protected infrastructure. That’s why we need to be building this movement and that is always aided by kindness.

BikeMN works this statewide — tracking legislation, hosting the annual Transportation Equity Day on the Hill, pushing for mandatory bike and pedestrian safety education in schools and infrastructure investment in the rural communities where the gap is worst. Their chapter network is pretty much unprecedented when compared to the rest of the transportation landscape. The Greater Mankato Bike & Walk Advocates down south, Vibrant Streets Duluth up north, chapters in smaller communities — these are the people changing what actually gets built. One email from someone a Greater Minnesota legislator has never heard from carries real weight. I say this not because I work at BikeMN now. I wouldn’t be working there if I didn’t start out organizing with their Rochester chapter. 

As Streets.mn has pointed out before, even good plans get watered down when advocates stop watching. It’s just the nature of it. Grow it all with kindness so that the resulting movement is the kind of place you and people like you will want to spend time. There’s a term for that: Prefigurative Politics

A letter writing event (Photo by U. Sorsberg – Unsplash)

Document dangerous intersections and use 311 – even when we know how many of the reports aren’t acted on. Patterns in service request data justify investment, and the spot that almost certainly got you almost got someone else last week.

On the subject of documentation: Bike Lane Uprising is worth knowing about and worth using. Their data has been used to directly reach out to companies who block bike lanes, has been used in court cases where bicyclists have been injured or killed, has gotten laws passed, and has pressured cities to build safe bike infrastructure. The mechanics of it are particularly clever: they systematically send legal notices to companies reported to their database, informing them they’ve been added to a national registry of bike lane obstructers — which means that if that company is later involved in a crash with a cyclist, they can be shown to have had prior knowledge that their drivers were breaking the law. Negligence becomes a lot harder to deny. Report what you see.

Go to the neighborhood meeting about the street reconstruction when you can. Write to your council member when a project goes sideways. Show up to the public hearing in person, because three people in a room still outweigh thirty emailed comments in the political math of a small city council.

The Minnesota bike law FAQ at <a href="http://BikeMN.org" rel="nofollow">BikeMN.org</a> is a great resource — not just for your own safety but because knowing it opens up those red-light conversations when the moment is right. (I am working on a pedestrian companion too!)

Photo of bike rider (Daniel Frank, Unsplash)

I describe myself as a climate-anxiety enthusiast. The deep-set rage I feel watching a city stall on a protected lane, or a state legislature quietly defunding active transportation, or another driver treating a bike lane like a parking spot — that fury is connected to something larger and older in me: dread. Low-frequency, helplessly watching the world make preventable choices in slow motion. That feeling doesn’t go away. I’ve stopped trying to make it go away. Instead I’ve learned to run it through something useful.

Community organizing runs on this. The people I’ve met through the BikeMN chapter network, through Transportation Equity Day on the Hill, through We Bike Rochester and the Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition’s monthly meetings — almost none of them showed up because things were going well. They showed up angry. They stayed because anger, aimed at systems instead of individuals, turns out to be surprisingly durable. It doesn’t burn out the way confrontation does. Confrontation spikes and crashes. Advocacy accumulates.

The driver who punish-passed you and sped off already forgot it happened. You’re still thinking about it a week later. That gap — between their indifference and your rage — is the energy source. The only question is whether you spend it yelling into a rearview mirror or spend it somewhere the system actually feels it.

Crash rates for cyclists have dropped even as commuting numbers tripled — because of infrastructure, and because more people came to understand that cyclists belong on the road. That progress came from people who took the slow, boring work of changing the environment seriously, and didn’t waste their best energy on someone who was already gone. It is shocking, compared to somewhere like Rochester, to do bike advocacy work in Minneapolis and find that essentially no major local candidates openly oppose the idea of bike infrastructure investments as being worthwhile. That is the work of concerted advocacy within institutions. 

The screaming is understandable. It just isn’t moving us forward.

Read the whole story
rocketo
4 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
acdha
17 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Outside-the-Box Design: The Barbican's Unusual Bathroom Sinks

2 Shares

The design of the Barbican Estates, London's residential Brutalist masterpiece, was finalized in 1959. Many of the apartments had bathrooms where the toilet was in its own little room, separated from the sink and bathtub. (This is an arrangement you often see in Japan.)

But in the 1960s, as construction began, the housing codes changed. Any room that contained a toilet now had to have its own sink. As-designed, there was simply no room to add a conventional sink to the separate toilet rooms. It fell to German architect Michael Hohmann to solve the problem.

Hohmann collaborated with Twyfords, a British sink manufacturer, and their in-house designer Munroe Blair on a radical design that would fit within the space. Because of the sink's unusual shape, it reportedly took six months for the firm to perfect the unusual mold and firing conditions required to create the porcelain sink within the tight tolerances.

Today the Barbican basin, as it's known, has become something of an icon, and an example of outside-of-the-box design thinking. It was also long-lived; it remained in production for over 50 years.



Read the whole story
rocketo
4 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

Microsoft Deliberately Bricking All Office For Mac 2019/2021 Installations

1 Comment and 3 Shares
Microsoft Office 2019 and 2021 for Mac will reportedly drop into "reduced functionality mode" on July 13, 2026, when a license-validation certificate expires, leaving perpetually licensed apps able to open files but not edit or save them. Slashdot reader joshuark shares a report from OSnews: "Microsoft Office 2019 and 2021 for Mac view-only conversion (2026) is a scheduled remote degradation of perpetually-licensed Microsoft Office software for macOS and iOS, set for July 13, 2026 when a license-validation certificate used by the Office apps expires," reports the Consumer Rights Wiki. "After Office 2019 for Mac reached end of support in October 2023, Microsoft assured customers their installed apps would 'continue to function.' The July 13, 2026 conversion instead drops the apps into a Microsoft-defined 'reduced functionality mode,' in which files can be opened and viewed but not edited or saved. By May 30, 2026, the original 2023 end-of-support page had been re-dated and rewritten on Microsoft's site; the 'continue to function' clause was removed." Microsoft's advice to the users they're stealing from is to keep using the applications as mere viewers, switch to the free Office 365 web applications, pay for a 365 subscription, or buy a brand new regular copy of Office 2024. None of these make any sense, and clearly, all of this should be illegal, but it's not because the software industry is a clown show.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read the whole story
rocketo
6 hours ago
reply
back to stacksocial i guess
seattle, wa
fxer
12 days ago
reply
Bend, Oregon
Share this story
Delete

Real signals or artificial stereotypes?

2 Shares

Despite the attention on Claude Code, in many industries Microsoft Copilot has become the go-to for running a data task or quick analysis with AI.

Which raises the question: how good it is at finding insights in a data file?

To test it out, I asked Copilot to look at differences in how people in US and UK expressed emotions in an Excel dataset that contained thousands of survey responses.

What did it find?

According to Copilot: ‘Based on the dataset you shared, US and UK responses differ mainly in tone, intensity, and wording style, even though they express similar emotional states’:

At first glance, this looks like a remarkably deep insight into text responses from two different countries.

There was just one catch: the dataset wasn’t real. It was simulated.

First, I’d created 2000 free-text responses and labelled them ‘UK’. Then I copied and pasted the exact same 2000 responses but labelled these ‘US’. Finally, I combined them to create a dataset of 4000 total responses, and jumbled them up.

Despite the responses being identical for the UK and US, Copilot produced a rich, detailed summary of how US and UK respondents differed.

Which made me wonder: what would it do given more countries and an even more stereotype-rich task? This time, I got an LLM to simulate 200 statements about career aspirations. Then I duplicated the dataset five times, labelling each one ‘US’, ‘UK’, ‘France’, ‘Germany’, ‘Italy’.

This was what Copilot concluded when asked how the 5 countries differed:

I asked it to dig deeper. Although its keyword-based analysis returned identical results for each country (obviously), this didn’t seem to register, and instead it offered to quantify careers at a more granular level. This is what its ‘quantified’ deep dive revealed:

Italians are three times more likely to aspire to a career in the arts than the UK, it seems. And Americans are 1.5x more business focused than the French. Even if they stated the exact same aspirations in the data.

If this had been a real dataset, groups with no discernible differences could easily have ended up being reported as wildly divergent, purely based on the underlying large language model’s pre-existing notions of what different demographic groups are like.

The analysis was run on ‘auto’ mode, which ‘selects the best model to ensure that you get the optimal performance’. Once we know the problem, it’s tempting to try a different model. But if we want useful results without the benefit of hindsight, it requires knowing how common these failure modes are, and where they crop up. After all, more ‘advanced’ settings aren’t always better. GPT in ‘thinking’ mode can sometimes be worse than ‘instant’ mode (e.g. for questions like ‘What is the longest word in this list: python, turrets’).

One thing I’ve learned building software tools over the years: people frequently use the default settings. Which means there’s a real risk that people are currently using AI to produce analysis that bears no resemblance to what people actually said.

It’s an important reminder that when using LLMs to analyse human datasets, it’s worth checking you’re not getting familiar stereotypes in place of real signals.

Datasets

Here are the two synthetic datasets used in the analysis:

Update

This post has resonated with people in the past couple of weeks. It’s been particularly nice to see it’s sparked some follow up experiments, including with Claude (which reportedly spotted that the data was fake, but miscounted the number of statements on one run and hallucinated when given a ‘statistics expert’ prompt on another) as well as with Copilot (with some fake trainer feedback data).

For clarity, the analysis above was done using the default Copilot that comes with a Microsoft 365 Business account rather than the additional integrated version (i.e. Microsoft 365 Copilot Business). Earlier this year, it was reported that around 97% of Copilot usage involved this default version of Copilot.

Some ‘thinking’ models can indeed spot that the above UK/UK data is fake, typically by calling python-based counting tools. This doesn’t work well for real data with variable wording, of course. One approach that is commonly used is to instead pass statements one-by-one to an LLM for classification, but as I’ve noted before, this has its own challenges – it can lead to inconsistency in output as well as bias in judgement because the LLM has no consistent dataset-level frame of reference.

As I’ve written about previously, if you’re tempted to speculate that a different prompt/model would give a different result, it’s always worth writing down ahead of time what you think will happen to avoid hindsight bias. And perhaps running a few simple experiments along the way.


Thanks for reading Understanding the unseen! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Read the whole story
rocketo
7 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
acdha
26 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Head Games: The Complicated History of (Straight) Pussy Eating in Film

1 Share

I’ve long been fascinated by the double standard applied to oral sex on screen.

The post Head Games: The Complicated History of (Straight) Pussy Eating in Film appeared first on Autostraddle.

Read the whole story
rocketo
17 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Speech

4 Shares


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Just a reminder that I am available for commencement speeches, birthdays, and Bar Mitzvahs.


Today's News:
Read the whole story
rocketo
19 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
acdha
10 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories