It surprises me that any municipality would make that legal, seems dangerous.

I started riding in AZ, which does not allow splitting.

I now live in CA, which does.

The actual justification for it is valid, but mostly outdated:

Older and less powerful motorcycles often have air-cooled engines, and if you sit idling in them in e.g. a traffic jam, they will absolutely overheat and die (at best).

Newer and more powerful bikes are liquid-cooled, and do not have this issue (though the driver overheating is another very real issue).

My personal take is that most riders who use bikes to commute are too reckless, and lane split at speed rather than doing so more safely.

25 mph or below, in fully-stopped traffic, is relatively safe. Ditto for <=35 in a 10-20 mph flow. Each of those gives you a relative stopping distance of about 50 feet, which is 3 or fewer car lengths, which is easy to account for.

60 in a 25mph flow OTOH isn't lane splitting, it's just weaving through traffic recklessly, hoping to God that no one in the next 20 cars lengths merges or drifts at all.

The good rule that most of Europe uses is that motorcycles can "lane filter" (i.e. go in between lanes but only for cars that are basically stopped and only at low speed). Going between lanes is suicidal at high speed, but if cars are <5mph and the motorcycle is ~10mph it's actually safer for the motorcycle because it removes the chance of them being rear-ended. (It also makes motorcycles faster than cars which is helpful for discouraging cars in cities)

Officially allowed in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and UK, from what I can tell. Interesting though, I'd have assumed it's permitted nowhere in the EU.

It's actually safer-ish. First: terms. Filtering is good, involves moving slowly through stopped traffic between the cars, usually under 20mph differential.

Splitting is less good, that involves weaving between cars at speed and is actually dangerous.

Some of the worst accidents are rear endings where drivers (not paying attention) just run you over while stopped in traffic.

This is offset by accidents where people do the stuff you're worried about but when it's practiced correctly that's not as big of a risk and generally leads to less catastrophic accidents than rear endings.

It's also just kinda dumb to force a class of vehicle that can get out of traffic jams to instead sit in them

There is no difference, from the model's point of view, between code it wrote and code someone else wrote. It's all just context.

Analogies can provide insight without exact equivalence.

While true, that doesn't distinguish between Zig and Rust, as both allow you to manually allocate memory and create custom data structures.

Ok, but doing manual memory management in Rust is a bit like digging a ditch with a spoon. I get that its technically possible, that does not mean it should be done outside the most exceptional of circumstances.

Jon Gjengset has some live streams where he does agentic coding.

Yes, but in my experience Claude is much better at diagnosing issues on Linux than any other OS because it's text-native and is the best documented OS.

Where I live (major city) because of zoning there are few apartment buildings and basically 100% are only for rent, not individually owned units. So if you want to own where you live it must be a townhome or detached house.

In fact, being able to "play the game" so to speak is probably part of what the interviewer is looking for.

It is also possible that they were trying to see, if the person had traumas that would interfere with their ability to work with toxic content, do red-teaming / etc tasks.

I've always been interested in Fossil, especially how they handle all the things in a project that aren't strictly code but still need to be tracked.

I'm like the person you responded to, I've just used fossil personally for years after working at a place using it a while back and always liked it.

This is its moment though. It is so well suited for LLM coding tools. You can jam all the markdown context, skills etc into the wiki. The CLI has wiki and ticket tools so those are just available for it to use. Fossil does not mind if you use the repo DB for your own stuff, so you can log all your sessions in there, fts5 is plenty for as needed on demand retrieval.

Big changes to professional development over the last year and hard to predict how it will all shake out, but I think the tooling will converge on something that fossil already has all the structure for. I was a late adopter on LLM-assisted coding but already feel ahead of a lot of my peers because of how easy and effective this approach is.

If you're talking about binary files, then it has similar limitations to Git and Mercurial, AFAIK. Fossil, git, and Mercurial are not really designed for large binary files.

Otherwise, in Fossil, any text is just another artifact. Wiki pages can be stored as files in the repo ("embedded") and versioned in the same manner as code files (that is, exposed through the same interface), or tracked behind the scenes (in a separate database, IIUC, with a different interface). Tickets and forum entries are also tracked and versioned similarly to non-embedded docs.

Aside from everything being versioned, the visibility of the objects is quite good. The user interface, both command and web, is light-years better than anything Git related.

I highly recommend you check it out. Even if you find it doesn't meet your needs, many of the design decisions are instructive. I find it quite inspiring.

It's pretty clear to me that these systems have a massive potential for intelligence agencies as people move more and more of their internal thought process to an external tool.

And, of course, intelligence agencies are good at realizing potential.