There's a level of risk associated with the activity, there's no denying that. Risk mitigation factors can be applied to reduce the risk to a palatable level for a lot of people. Snow tyres, riding slowly, using lights in low light etc.
The opportunity is to convince more people that cycling is a legitimate option for a large group of people. Infrastructure investment instills confidence and further education for both cyclists and drivers help to manage that risk.
Whilst cycling in the snow might not be your cup of tea, there's a cohort of people who could consider it as a net positive to get from A to B, exercise and put less wear into the road. And we need to support those people.
This is an over simplistic view that applies broad strokes. I hold the view that cash flow is king. Without having significantly more than 'twice the month income' right now I would be unable to pay my rent and bills and be forced to pick up lower income work at the opportunity cost of finding a new job that's in line with my career.
The biggest ruse is Facebook convincing marketeers and agencies alike that three seconds counts as a video view. They justify this by saying people don't want to watch videos are attention deficit.
The truth is that very few people want to watch an ad. But if there's a strong enough value exchange with the consumer, they will. Just make effective content that's emotive, funny or offers utility.
Creatively, the impact of this is clients wanting ALL the messaging in the first three seconds of video content, which often causes the consumer to skip the rest of the content anyway.
The issue is not related to climate change, but a series of water policies that have favoured farming / agriculture over the environment / community use. In short, too much water being taken upstream.
As an Australian, it baffles me that we're trying to grow cotton and rice in the desert. I personally don't believe that farmers who make poor business decisions should be consistently bailed out by the government. I'd rather we pay for research into drought resistant crops, growing the right produce in the right climates, and failing that, retraining farmers and agri workers into new industries like solar. Lots of sun, not much water.
I cycle commute in London every day and you don't need dedicated cycling infrastructure. It's great to use if it's there but otherwise you make do. Rather than trying to take the most direct route, I cut through small laneways and alleys and ride through a couple of parks. Get on a bike and start exploring. There's nothing more soul crushing than London's public transport during peak hour.
I'm not sure why this is downvoted. I work in advertising as a conceptual creative. My entire career is about creating ideas like this for brands.
An art director and copywriter sat in a room together over two days and came up with lots of different ideas to generate PR for Mr. Robot. They presented the ideas to a creative director, who went through the work and picked the one he felt was most suitable. They presented it to the client, who supported the idea.
There would have been some line of communication from the creative agency, whoever owns Mr Robot, a media/PR agency and Mozilla. The idea was bought by the client, had the agency liaise with media/PR, got in touch with Mozilla with an undisclosed donation and the add-on was coded.
The biggest problem, for me, is that these extensions obviously get less scrutiny in Mozilla organization. The "core" is made with a lot of "eyes" taking care that not something "wrong" for the user enters the code base.
Then some marketing people both in and outside of Mozilla push something that is probably not passing the same strict reviews.
It points to the organizational problem in Mozilla.
Re: "not sure": don't worry, some people do this not for the content but for the author, some lack reading comprehension and some just press the wrong button. Just vote yourself, and if you reply, say that you agree, don't mention the word you mentioned.
Why would you assume that it does? Have you ever seen how big products like core Firefox binaries are written, reviewed and tested? I took part in that, and this doesn't look at all as part of that process. I see it's even not in the same repository where the "serious stuff" is. It's not the part of that process.
This looks like "let's give litte Perry and these marketing departments something to play, whatever, it's just an extension, who cares." So little Perry writes a description of the extension "MY REALITY IS JUST DIFFERENT FROM YOURS", the extension gets silently pushed to all the US users(!) (Firefox has support for that) who freak out, and the first response from somebody involved with that was "it was not supposed to be seen." You see, it was planned to keep the extension also "invisible" to the users -- Firefox has support that too! The extension was obviously not formally reviewed or formally tested, if the "invisibility" was the goal. Of course, it being "invisible" wouldn't be better. It's a misuse of the whole mechanism, compared to what Mozilla explained to the users. The mechanism was supposed to allow making "studies" from the behavior of the users who agree to take part in them. Instead, it was an attempt to a "viral ad" that was delivered to the whole Firefox using US population. There are multiple wrong decisions in this story.
Now I hope Mozilla does get the idea that the users do care.
It's not what you are but what your settings are, please go here and check what your browser reports under ACCEPT_LANGUAGE. If it is "en-US" you are considered a "US user" enough:
BTW: the extension we all talk about here has exactly this site that is used for checking the headers hardcoded inside, obviously in order for the developers to test their newly coded functionality with which they add an additional header entry in the request to some specific sites, specifically, the "main target" is a brand (I've given the link earlier on in this thread). It's obviously an advertisement for the US as that "main target" site is only meaningful to the US public. But it's obviously not the whole story.
If your language is not en-US it's worse than what I've understood.
I'd like to disagree. I work in advertising in London and about 50% of people I work with are from the EU. They're annoyed that they are being used as a bargaining chip for EU discussions. Many of my colleagues are already discussing / planning moving to Amsterdam, Berlin or Madrid. London is expensive enough to live in as it is, now no one feels welcome. And that's just advertising, then there's the NHS.
I don't really understand the 'bargaining chip statement'. The UK government has said publicly, privately, and repeatedly that it would like an agreement on EU citizens' rights ASAP and could do it before article 50. The EU rejected this. In addition, no EU country has unilaterally offered British citizens abroad rights. So the UK has not acted worse in this regard than any other EU country. And it has acted better than those that rejected a deal on this earlier than article 50 (i.e. Germany).
Ok, look. I'm a Polish citizen living in the UK. I don't have any interest living anywhere else, this is my home, I don't like Poland, I don't want to move back there, I don't want to have anything to do with their government or their ideas.
I pay my taxes in the UK - hence, I want the UK government to guarantee my rights to stay here, to openly say that yes, my work here is appreciated and will be protected.
I do not agree with the sentiment that UK should wait until EU guarantees the same thing for UK citizens - because that's exactly what's turning me into a bargaining chip.
Either I am welcome here, or I am not - it cannot be a conditional thing.
My other concern is that the Polish government has repeatedly expressed hopes that all Poles would come back and work in their home country - so there is a real concern they will be dicks when it comes to offering rights to UK citizens, in hope that UK retaliates and doesn't give Poles in the UK rights to stay.
I totally understand. But there's also a british person living in Poland saying the complete opposite. I.e. don't guarantee them rights and leave me to the whims of the Polish government!
The current government shot down an amendment to the Brexit bill that would have guaranteed the rights of EU nationals currently in the UK. I don't think the onus is on the EU at this point to protect UK citizens. No discussions can be made until Article 50 has been triggered.
Also, you need to take anything the UK government says with a grain of salt. Once upon a time, what looked like a promise to invest 350M into the NHS after Brexit appeared to be nothing but a political ploy.
> I don't think the onus is on the EU at this point to protect UK citizens.
Why not? Why do people expect the UK to act unilaterally but not EU countries? It's a double-standard.
> Also, you need to take anything the UK government says with a grain of salt.
I do. None of the EU leaders (or foreign press) has contested the UK's accounting of this. i.e. the UK has tried to have this sorted before article 50, but elements of the EU said no.
The opportunity is to convince more people that cycling is a legitimate option for a large group of people. Infrastructure investment instills confidence and further education for both cyclists and drivers help to manage that risk.
Whilst cycling in the snow might not be your cup of tea, there's a cohort of people who could consider it as a net positive to get from A to B, exercise and put less wear into the road. And we need to support those people.