lettuceconstant

I do the same, although my reasoning probably slightly differs. I hate the idea that I'll mangle a pastime as "primitive" as hiking or biking into some technology optimization problem. People did this stuff way back with perfectly simple gear and were entirely happy enough.

Sure, I could probably be a bit faster or go on a bit longer if I had better gear. But I could also achieve that by just getting into a better shape. With this level of commitment the gear is not the limiting factor. If I can't go faster with this bike, then I don't deserve to go faster with a fancier one, god dammit.

My work is very complicated and technical, so I get some satisfaction from keeping my hobbies ascetic.

No doubt. It's just that people do not feel as seriously about scootering drunk as they do about driving drunk (and of course, they should not. It's obviously not the same level of risk.) The rental scooters seem provide an easy avenue for the drunk to drive around at 20 kph instead of just meandering along the sidewalk in a leisurely manner, or taking a cab.

I don't know about the situation in your city, but there problem really is that a comparatively large portion of e-scooter drivers are either idiots or drunk and idiots.

At least here they should follow same traffic rules as bikes, but it's very common to see them driving amid pedestrians. Of course, no gear present whatsoever. The average scooter accident is also more serious than the average cycling accident with head injuries being particularly common. Even if the typical victim is the driver himself, that does not make e-scooters great for the city.

We already have city bikes here and it would be societally much preferable if people were just using those instead.

Sure, but I have to obtain my dopamine somehow.

By taking a look you'll find that regulations are commonly written by civil servants and various experts (which are typically not chosen by a vote) and then approved by people that you do get to choose by a vote.

On both sides of the pond.

Surely the fact that you're on hackerNEWS does not imply that you like all the news?

Firstly, my comment was overly antagonizing, sorry for that.

My problem is with the interpretation of Planck units; they really do not appear in current theories as signifying any theoretical lower limit to measurability, as I must interpret that you claim by saying:

> As far as physicists believe at the moment, there's no way to ever observe a difference below the Planck level. Energy/distance/time/whatever. They all have a lower boundary of measurability. That's not as a practical issue, it's a theoretical one. According to the best models we currently have, there's literally no way to ever observe a difference below those levels.

For example, the Planck energy is a nice macroscopic quantity of approximately 2 gigajoules. For the Planck quantities that are more extreme, the measurement is not hampered by the theory but by practical issues.

Sure, we don't expect our theories to hold at Planck length, but this is not due to something that's baked into the Standard Model or general relativity.