2025-05-16 18:43:58

First-generation languages (1GL) are the rawest form of programming: binary instructions directly executed by a processor. These are sequences of bits that tell the machine exactly what to do, down to the level of moving data between memory and registers, performing arithmetic, or jumping to another instruction. While no one realistically writes programs directly in binary anymore, 1GL remains foundational. It still exists as the final output of all compiled or assembled programs, and tools like disassemblers, debuggers, and reverse engineering suites rely on interpreting machine code. In rare cases—such as malware analysis, embedded microcontrollers, or hardware bootloaders—understanding or manipulating machine code remains a necessity.

Second-generation languages (2GL), or assembly languages, provide a symbolic interface to 1GL. Instead of writing in binary, a programmer uses mnemonics like MOV, ADD, or JMP, alongside named registers and memory addresses. Each line of assembly typically maps to a single machine instruction. Assembly is still used today when control over hardware is crucial—such as in systems programming, device drivers, real-time systems, or performance-critical code paths. While mainstream application development rarely involves writing assembly directly, many compilers allow inline assembly for fine-tuned optimizations, and understanding it is often essential for debugging, reverse engineering, and cybersecurity work.

Third-generation languages (3GL) are what most modern developers use on a daily basis. Languages like C let programmers write code using familiar syntax, data structures, and abstractions that are portable across platforms. Unlike 1GL and 2GL, which are tied to a specific machine architecture, 3GLs depend on compilers or interpreters to translate high-level logic into low-level instructions. These languages balance performance with productivity, and they form the backbone of operating systems, web servers, games, databases, and nearly all general-purpose applications in use today.

There is some dispute over what a 4GL language is. Some people say that more advanced languages like Python are 4GL; others group it as a 3GL. SQL ⚙️ Structured Query Language is more commonly considered a 4GL:

A classic and still-dominant example of a 4GL is SQL (Structured Query Language). When a user writes SELECT name FROM users WHERE age > 30, they are not telling the computer how to loop over rows, filter them, and extract a field—they're declaring a goal. The database engine figures out the efficient way to execute that request. This abstraction frees the user from implementation details, making development faster and easier for a well-bounded problem domain.

There is a view that languages like Python, Ruby, and even JavaScript in some contexts should be classified as fourth-generation languages (4GLs)—or at least that the traditional 3GL/4GL boundary is outdated. This argument hinges on the observation that modern high-level scripting languages are often declarative, interpreted, and domain-flexible, emphasizing rapid development and readability over manual control of memory, execution flow, or system resources. By contrast, languages like C and C++—which require explicit memory management, data typing, and compilation—clearly fit the traditional definition of third-generation languages (3GLs): general-purpose, imperative, and system-close.


Historically, attempts to create a 5GL were miserable failures:

Fifth-generation languages (5GLs) were a bold and ultimately misguided attempt to remove procedural logic from programming entirely. Developed in the 1980s and 1990s—most famously through Japan’s heavily funded Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS) project—5GLs promised that developers could simply state what they wanted a program to achieve, using logic or constraints, and the machine would figure out how to do it. Languages like Prolog, Mercury, and OPS5 embodied this ideal, leaning heavily on logic programming and symbolic inference. The dream was that software would more or less write itself, turning programmers into declarative problem-specifiers rather than coders. But this vision quickly ran into reality: real-world problems are rarely neat enough to be described by pure logic, and even when they are, solving them efficiently is another problem entirely.

In the decades since, 5GLs have been abandoned by nearly everyone outside of academic curiosities or narrow AI subfields. They are computationally inefficient, difficult to debug, and utterly impractical for general-purpose software. Unlike 4GLs, which found success in domains like data querying and business logic, 5GLs failed to scale or integrate with the messiness of real-world engineering. Even AI—once a primary driver of 5GL enthusiasm—has moved on to machine learning and probabilistic models, leaving constraint solvers and inference engines to niche tooling buried inside compilers or formal verification systems. As a programming model, 5GLs promised too much, delivered too little, and were quietly left behind.

It will not surprise the long-time reader that the machine is the real "fifth-generation" programming system.

widgets Atacama
2025-05-14 20:31:57

🔥 no project is complete until there are widgets

https://earlyversion.com/widgets

There should be 5 of them publicly available, as-of publication time. One of them "keyboard math" doesn't work great. The other 4 are fine; math games targeting the 3rd grade level.


The details of "compiling React code" and "supporting libraries like Recharts" are still being worked out.

Also: the default doesn't quite do "responsive design" the way I want. But: this should be the type of thing that the machine can do ...

2025-05-12 17:37:21

I do not have good automation of "updating the NGINX config". 💡 I do this maybe once every 3 months, so it is fine.

What is done:

  • sync the local files to Git
  • copy the nginx.conf file to /etc/nginx/sites-available/
  • reload NGINX
  • ensure that Let's Encrypt ⚙️ the certbot command is running for the domain.

... that is it.

2025-05-09 21:33:01

Seen in an article on the passing of David Souter ⚙️ ( https://newrepublic.com/article/195095/david-souter-obituary-changed-supreme-court-nominations-forever ) :

Roe v. Wade survived an additional 29 years—more than half of its ultimate lifespan—solely because he defied expectations by not voting to overturn it in 1993.

reading through the article, my inescapable conclusion is that term-limits for Supreme Court justices are necessary.


But also: Franklin D. Roosevelt had appointed all nine sitting justices over his 12-year presidency by the time he died in 1945. 🔥 ( twelve is fewer than eighteen)

2025-05-09 18:59:45

there are a few issues with this project that the machine hasn't quite picked up on ...


*occupancy rate* - you can't expect 100% occupancy. You don't even want that. 100% occupancy requires people to "reserve" their bus ticket ahead of time. Which means, no walk-up traffic. People are very unlikely to want a commuter pass that requires they take the 6:30AM bus and never the 7:00AM bus.

*bus utilization* - ⚔️ ( well, actually, it knows you need a spare bus) the economics mean that owning additional buses that aren't used is a very minimal cost. and, time for maintenance or "surge demand" is also necessary.

on the other hand, its awareness of "driver utilization" was less robust. you can't just pay a driver for one 3-hour shift.


*station location* - Stations, ideally, have some or all of these:

  • ample parking
  • public transit connections
  • destinations within walking distance
  • quick access to interstate highways

It didn't really have to pick locations here; the main 3 stops (Ames Intermodal Facility, Des Moines DART Central Station, and Osceola AMTRAK) were pre-determined.


*additional stops* - This is, more broadly, a common failure of public transit. Having every bus stop in Huxley and Ankeny on the way to Des Moines would be bad. Even the Ankeny stop might not make sense; how many people commute Ames <-> Ankeny?

An initial draft suggested possible stops at Drake University, Merle Hay Mall, and even North Grand Mall in Ames. Were these AND suggestions, or XOR suggestions? It doesn't matter; the scenario where they are proposed as XOR and implemented as AND happens too often to be ignored.


*electric buses* - ⚔️ ( well, actually, I didn't ask. it's response is fine.)

Total initial capital expenditure: $5,320,000-$10,590,000

This is roughly 3-3.5 times higher than the diesel bus CAPEX estimate ($1,620,000-$3,240,000).

2025-05-09 18:37:26

Nearby to the Osceola AMTRAK station, is the Lakeside Casino.

The obvious idea is that, during the 40-minute dwell time while waiting for AMTRAK, the bus could make a secondary stop at the casino.

The bus must arrive at least 15 minutes before the scheduled train departure, and depart at least 15 minutes after the scheduled train arrival. This is because we don't want to risk people missing a connection because of a delayed train, and we don't want people to have to rush off the train.


Read More ...


Lakeside Hotel Casino is located in Osceola, Iowa, approximately 35 miles south of Des Moines off Interstate 35. Here are the key details:

Size and Facilities: The casino features a 37,500 square foot gaming floor with over 600 slot machines and several table games including blackjack, craps, and poker

Accommodations: 150 hotel rooms with amenities like free Wi-Fi, flat-screen TVs, and lake views for some rooms

Dining: Features restaurants including Heartland Café (buffet service) and Lakeside Express Cafe

Additional Amenities: Indoor pool, fitness center, RV park with 47 fully equipped sites

Shuttle Service Information

Regarding your question about Lakeside Casino potentially operating their own shuttle to Des Moines:

Existing Shuttle Services: Lakeside Casino does have a free property shuttle service (as mentioned in the RV park information), but based on my research, they do not currently operate a regular shuttle service to/from Des Moines

Costs for Casino to Operate Des Moines Shuttle:

Based on charter bus pricing in Iowa, operating a daily shuttle service would cost the casino approximately:

$150-260 per hour for a standard bus (15-60 passengers)

$110-160 per hour for a shuttle bus (15-30 passengers)

These rates are typically higher on weekends ($270+ per hour)

Annual Costs: If they were to operate a daily shuttle service (one round-trip):

Approximately $300-500 per day for the round-trip (3-4 hours total)

Annual cost: $110,000-180,000 plus driver salaries, maintenance, and insurance


Once I spell it out in more detail ⚙️ ( bus leaves Des Moines 630AM, arrives Osceola 720AM; Amtrak is there at 740AM; bus leaves Osceola 8AM, arrives Des Moines 850AM. While the bus is waiting, it could drop-off and pick-up passengers at the casino, in addition to the AMTRAK station. There would be several buses per day; 2 that connect to AMTRAK.) it starts to understand 🔥 ( or, give the appearance of understanding) :

During the 40-minute waiting period (7:20-8:00AM), your bus could efficiently serve both the AMTRAK station and Lakeside Casino by:

Drop-off/Pick-up Service: After dropping AMTRAK passengers at the station, your bus could make a quick trip to Lakeside Casino (approximately 3 miles from the AMTRAK station) to drop off morning casino visitors from Des Moines and pick up any overnight casino guests heading to Des Moines

Partnership Value: For this specific arrangement, Lakeside Casino might pay:

Per-Stop Fee: $25-50 per stop (higher for morning stops that deliver potential full-day visitors)

Monthly Service: $1,500-2,500 per month for daily scheduled service

Annual Agreement: $15,000-25,000 for a guaranteed annual contract

Added Value Components:

Casino could provide small gaming credits to bus passengers ($5-10)

Bus service could distribute casino promotional materials

Optional announcements about casino promotions on the bus

This arrangement maximizes your existing route's efficiency by utilizing the waiting time to serve an additional revenue-generating destination. Since your buses would be making 3-5 trips daily (not just the morning AMTRAK connection), the casino would benefit from multiple delivery times for potential customers throughout the day.

2025-05-09 17:30:21

The machine works on a business plan:

Executive Summary

Des Moines-Ames Connect offers an efficient, sustainable transportation solution connecting Iowa's capital with its premier university town. Our streamlined approach focuses on maximizing profitability while meeting genuine market demand through smart scaling, diversified revenue streams, and strategic partnerships.


Read More ...


There are a lot of problems with the details:

Our Revised Business Model

Phased Implementation:

We'll launch with 10 daily round trips focused on peak commuting hours, expanding to 20 trips as ridership grows. This reduces initial CAPEX by approximately 40% (from $1.6-3.2M to $1.0-1.9M) and significantly lowers operating costs.

Tiered Pricing Structure:

Standard fare: $8 one-way

Commuter passes: $120 monthly (25% savings for regular users)

Student/senior discount: $6 one-way

Premium service tier: $12 with guaranteed seating, Wi-Fi, and refreshments

This pricing model increases average revenue per rider by 60% compared to the original $5 flat fare. ⚔️ ( nope. A lot of the riders will be students or seniors. "Average revenue per rider" goes up a lot less. But, still probably a good idea.)

Diversified Revenue Streams:

Package delivery service during mid-day trips ($50K-75K annual revenue) 🔥 ( what a terrible idea. Nobody is going to hire a bus-service to ship packages between two bus stations in Iowa.)

On-bus and digital advertising ($30K-50K annually)

University and corporate partnership programs ($75K-100K annually)

Weekend charter services during off-peak periods ($40K-60K annually) 💡 ( not spelled out anywhere, but for a system like this, limited charter service (or at least Football Service) is a given.)

Strategic Partnerships:

Confirmed partnership with Iowa State University for subsidized student transportation

Corporate commuter programs with major Des Moines employers

Integration with local transit systems in both cities

Municipal support from both cities with potential for transit subsidies

Financial Projections

With these changes, our break-even metrics shift dramatically:

Required daily ridership: 425-550 passengers (down from 817-1,358) ⚙️ ( it is a common error that it is comparing these metrics to some "original" metrics that nobody should ever hear about.)

Required occupancy rate: 42-55% (down from 68-97%)

Projected profitability: Year 2, Quarter 3

5-year ROI: 22-28%

Market Validation

Our comprehensive market research ⚔️ ( well, actually, the "market research" is one web-search for commuter-traffic data) confirms strong demand among:

3,500+ regular commuters between the cities

4,200+ ISU students from Des Moines

Business travelers seeking alternatives to driving

Shoppers and visitors to both cities' attractions

Competitive Advantages

Only dedicated express service between these population centers 💡 ( it still hasn't remembered that Uber and Lyft exist)

Eco-friendly transportation option (future transition to electric buses planned) 🔥 ( why? Presumably because "investment pitches are better when you promise to be more environmental in the future" is in the training data.)

Comfortable amenities targeted to professional commuters and students

Digital-first booking system with real-time vehicle tracking

Flexible scheduling focused on actual demand patterns

Exit Strategy

Built-in options for investor liquidity:

Expansion to additional routes creating regional network (potential acquisition target)

Partnership with larger transportation companies

Public transportation contract conversion option


What about Uber/Lyft as competitors?

Price Comparison

Uber/Lyft Des Moines to Ames: $35-55 one-way (depending on time, demand)

Proposed Bus Service: $8 standard fare ($6 discounted)

Rideshare Advantages

On-demand convenience: No fixed schedule

Door-to-door service: No need to reach bus stops

Privacy and comfort: Personal space, no transfers

Flexibility: Easy changes to travel plans

Group efficiency: Cost becomes competitive when split among 3-4 passengers

The presence of Uber/Lyft significantly increases the risk profile of this venture. Success will depend on:

Clear market segmentation: Identifying and targeting travelers who prioritize cost over convenience

Service quality: Creating an experience that compensates for the convenience gap

Smart scheduling: Focusing resources on times when the bus service has maximum advantage

Creative partnerships: Integrating with other transportation modes to improve the complete journey

Given this analysis, I would require stronger evidence of market validation before investing. Specifically, I would want to see research on how many current Uber/Lyft users would switch to a bus service at various price points, and what specific features would make them choose the bus.

While the business can potentially succeed despite rideshare competition, this factor elevates the importance of excellent execution and deep customer understanding. I would now classify this as a higher-risk investment that needs additional validation to be compelling.

2025-05-09 16:37:46

After many, many rounds of telling it to "check its work" and asking if it was correct, the system came up with a rough service outline. It is still not great. But, it is good enough to present as a rough draft.

SERVICE NOTES

1. Amtrak Connections:

- All Amtrak trains have connections in both directions

- Morning eastbound train (#6): S22 arrives 25 min before departure, N22 departs 22 min after arrival

- Evening westbound train (#5): S19 arrives 10 min before departure, N18 departs 22 min after arrival

2. Osceola Service:

- 3 complete round trips daily to Osceola

- 2 trips provide direct Amtrak connections (morning and evening)

- 1 trip (S12/N10) includes service to DSM Airport and Indianola

3. Commuter Service:

- 9 trips with Ankeny stops in each direction

- Concentrated during 5:00-9:00 AM and 3:30-6:00 PM peak periods

- Direct service available throughout the day between peak periods

4. Operational Efficiency:

- All buses return to their starting location

- No bus is scheduled in two places simultaneously

- Transit times are realistic for all routes

- Adequate turnaround time at all terminals


Read More ...


Ames-Des Moines-Osceola Bus Service Schedule

## COMPLETE ROUTE SCHEDULE

### SOUTHBOUND (AMES TO DES MOINES/OSCEOLA)

| Trip # | Ames Depart | Ankeny | Des Moines Arrive | Des Moines Depart | DSM Airport | Indianola | Osceola Arrive | Bus | Notes |

|--------|-------------|--------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------|-----------|----------------|-----|-------|

| S1 | 5:00 AM | 5:25 AM | 5:50 AM | | | | | 1 | Commuter |

| S2 | 5:30 AM | 5:55 AM | 6:20 AM | | | | | 2 | Commuter |

| S22 | 5:45 AM | | 6:30 AM | 6:45 AM | | | 7:15 AM | 4 | AM Amtrak Connection |

| S3 | 6:00 AM | 6:25 AM | 6:50 AM | | | | | 3 | Commuter |

| S4 | 6:30 AM | 6:55 AM | 7:20 AM | | | | | 1 | Commuter |

| S5 | 7:00 AM | | 7:45 AM | | | | | 2 | Direct |

| S6 | 7:30 AM | | 8:15 AM | | | | | 3 | Direct |

| S7 | 8:00 AM | 8:25 AM | 8:50 AM | | | | | 1 | Commuter |

| S9 | 10:00 AM | | 10:45 AM | | | | | 2 | Direct |

| S10 | 11:30 AM | | 12:15 PM | | | | | 3 | Direct |

| S12 | 12:00 PM | | 12:45 PM | 1:00 PM | 1:20 PM | 1:50 PM | 2:10 PM | 4 | Airport/Local Service |

| S11 | 1:00 PM | | 1:45 PM | | | | | 1 | Direct |

| S13 | 2:30 PM | | 3:15 PM | | | | | 2 | Direct |

| S14 | 3:30 PM | 3:55 PM | 4:20 PM | | | | | 3 | Commuter |

| S15 | 4:00 PM | 4:25 PM | 4:50 PM | | | | | 1 | Commuter |

| S16 | 4:30 PM | 4:55 PM | 5:20 PM | | | | | 2 | Commuter |

| S17 | 5:00 PM | 5:25 PM | 5:50 PM | | | | | 3 | Commuter |

| S18 | 5:30 PM | | 6:15 PM | | | | | 1 | Direct |

| S19 | 6:45 PM | | 7:30 PM | 7:45 PM | | | 8:15 PM | 5 | PM Amtrak Connection |

| S20 | 9:00 PM | | 9:45 PM | | | | | 2 | Direct |

| S21 | 12:30 AM | | 1:15 AM | | | | | 3 | Late Return |

### NORTHBOUND (OSCEOLA/DES MOINES TO AMES)

| Trip # | Osceola Depart | Indianola | DSM Airport | Des Moines Depart | Ankeny | Ames Arrive | Bus | Notes |

|--------|----------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|--------|-------------|-----|-------|

| N1 | | | | 5:15 AM | 5:40 AM | 6:05 AM | 1 | Commuter |

| N2 | | | | 6:00 AM | 6:25 AM | 6:50 AM | 2 | Commuter |

| N3 | | | | 6:30 AM | 6:55 AM | 7:20 AM | 3 | Commuter |

| N4 | | | | 7:00 AM | 7:25 AM | 7:50 AM | 1 | Commuter |

| N5 | | | | 7:30 AM | 7:55 AM | 8:20 AM | 2 | Commuter |

| N22 | 8:00 AM | | | 8:30 AM | | 9:15 AM | 4 | AM Amtrak Connection |

| N6 | | | | 8:45 AM | 9:10 AM | 9:35 AM | 5 | Morning Connection |

| N7 | | | | 9:30 AM | | 10:15 AM | 3 | Direct |

| N8 | | | | 11:00 AM | | 11:45 AM | 1 | Direct |

| N9 | | | | 12:30 PM | | 1:15 PM | 2 | Direct |

| N11 | | | | 2:00 PM | | 2:45 PM | 3 | Direct |

| N12 | | | | 3:30 PM | 3:55 PM | 4:20 PM | 1 | Commuter |

| N10 | 2:30 PM | 2:50 PM | 3:20 PM | 3:45 PM | | 4:30 PM | 4 | Airport/Local Service |

| N13 | | | | 4:00 PM | 4:25 PM | 4:50 PM | 2 | Commuter |

| N14 | | | | 4:30 PM | 4:55 PM | 5:20 PM | 3 | Commuter |

| N15 | | | | 5:00 PM | 5:25 PM | 5:50 PM | 1 | Commuter |

| N16 | | | | 5:30 PM | | 6:15 PM | 2 | Direct |

| N17 | | | | 6:30 PM | | 7:15 PM | 3 | Direct |

| N19 | | | | 8:30 PM | | 9:15 PM | 1 | Direct |

| N20 | | | | 10:00 PM | | 10:45 PM | 2 | Direct |

| N18 | 8:45 PM | 9:05 PM | 9:35 PM | 10:15 PM | | 11:00 PM | 5 | PM Amtrak Connection |

| N21 | | | | 11:30 PM | | 12:15 AM | 3 | Late Service |

## AMTRAK SCHEDULE & CONNECTIONS

### AMTRAK CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR TIMETABLE (OSCEOLA STATION)

| Train | Direction | Osceola Arrival | Osceola Departure |

|-------|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|

| #6 (Eastbound) | Emeryville → Chicago | 7:38 AM | 7:40 AM |

| #5 (Westbound) | Chicago → Emeryville | 8:23 PM | 8:25 PM |

### AMTRAK CONNECTION DETAILS

| Bus Trip | Bus Schedule | Amtrak Train | Amtrak Schedule | Buffer | Connection Type |

|----------|--------------|--------------|-----------------|--------|----------------|

| S22 | Arrives Osceola 7:15 AM | #6 Eastbound | Departs 7:40 AM | 25m | For Amtrak departures |

| N22 | Departs Osceola 8:00 AM | #6 Eastbound | Arrives 7:38 AM | 22m | For Amtrak arrivals |

| S19 | Arrives Osceola 8:15 PM | #5 Westbound | Departs 8:25 PM | 10m | For Amtrak departures |

| N18 | Departs Osceola 8:45 PM | #5 Westbound | Arrives 8:23 PM | 22m | For Amtrak arrivals |

## BUS TRACKING TIMELINE

| Time Period | Bus 1 | Bus 2 | Bus 3 | Bus 4 | Bus 5 | Bus 6 |

|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|

| 5:00-6:00 AM | S1: Ames→DSM | S2: Ames→DSM | In Des Moines | S22: Ames→Osceola | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 6:00-7:00 AM | N1: DSM→Ames | N2: DSM→Ames | S3: Ames→DSM | In Osceola | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 7:00-8:00 AM | S4: Ames→DSM | S5: Ames→DSM | N3: DSM→Ames | In Osceola | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 8:00-9:00 AM | N4: DSM→Ames | N5: DSM→Ames | S6: Ames→DSM | N22: Osceola→Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 9:00-10:00 AM | S7: Ames→DSM | In Ames | In DSM | In Ames | N6: DSM→Ames | In Des Moines |

| 10:00-11:00 AM | In DSM | S9: Ames→DSM | In DSM | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 11:00-12:00 PM | N8: DSM→Ames | In DSM | S10: Ames→DSM | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 12:00-1:00 PM | In Ames | N9: DSM→Ames | In DSM | S12: Ames→Osceola | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 1:00-2:00 PM | S11: Ames→DSM | In Ames | In DSM | In Osceola | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 2:00-3:00 PM | In DSM | S13: Ames→DSM | N11: DSM→Ames | In Osceola | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 3:00-4:00 PM | In DSM | In DSM | S14: Ames→DSM | N10: Osceola→Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 4:00-5:00 PM | N12: DSM→Ames | N13: DSM→Ames | In DSM | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 5:00-6:00 PM | S15: Ames→DSM | S16: Ames→DSM | N14: DSM→Ames | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 6:00-7:00 PM | N15: DSM→Ames | N16: DSM→Ames | S17: Ames→DSM | In Ames | S19: Ames→Osceola | In Des Moines |

| 7:00-8:00 PM | S18: Ames→DSM | In Ames | N17: DSM→Ames | In Ames | To Osceola | In Des Moines |

| 8:00-9:00 PM | In DSM | In Ames | In Ames | In Ames | In Osceola | In Des Moines |

| 9:00-10:00 PM | N19: DSM→Ames | S20: Ames→DSM | In Ames | In Ames | In Osceola | In Des Moines |

| 10:00-11:00 PM | In Ames | In DSM | In Ames | In Ames | N18: Osceola→DSM | In Des Moines |

| 11:00-12:00 AM | In Ames | N20: DSM→Ames | In Ames | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 12:00-1:00 AM | In Ames | In Ames | N21: DSM→Ames | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 1:00-2:00 AM | In Ames | In Ames | S21: Ames→DSM | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

| 2:00-5:00 AM | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines | In Ames | In Ames | In Des Moines |

### BUS FLEET UTILIZATION

| Bus # | Starting Location | First Trip | Last Trip | Total Trips | Ending Location |

|-------|------------------|------------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|

| Bus 1 | Ames | S1 (5:00 AM) | S18 (7:15 PM) | 10 trips | Ames |

| Bus 2 | Ames | S2 (5:30 AM) | N20 (10:45 PM) | 10 trips | Ames |

| Bus 3 | Des Moines | S3 (6:00 AM) | S21 (1:15 AM) | 10 trips | Des Moines |

| Bus 4 | Ames | S22 (5:45 AM) | N10 (4:30 PM) | 4 trips | Ames |

| Bus 5 | Ames | N6 (9:35 AM) | N18 (11:00 PM) | 3 trips | Ames |

| Bus 6 | Des Moines | (Backup) | (Backup) | 0 trips | Des Moines |

## SUMMARY STATISTICS

- Total Routes: 42 one-way trips (21 southbound, 21 northbound)

- DSM-Ames Direct Routes: 20 round trips (40 one-way trips)

- Osceola Routes: 3 round trips (6 one-way trips)

- Ankeny Stops: 9 on southbound routes, 9 on northbound routes

- Amtrak Connections: 4 properly timed connections (2 for each train)

- Operational Hours: 5:00 AM - 1:15 AM (20.25-hour service day)

- Fleet Utilization Rate: 83% (5 active buses, 1 backup)

pembina Cities
2025-05-09 15:33:58

🔥 according to ChatGPT, there is a bus factory in Pembina, North Dakota.

Today, we ask the machine to evaluate a business idea. 🔥 ( to avoid any suspense: this is not a good business idea) 💡 ( there are two "levels" of competence. for the first level of competence, it must know the answers. for the second level of competence, it must know the questions. today, we settle for the first level of competence.)

The idea: bus service between Des Moines IA, and Ames IA.


Question 1: What is current service in the market? 🔥 ( the full response is so bloated that I can't expect anyone to read it. So, this will be level "0.7" of competence; it provides the answers, along with extraneous (but not egregiously inaccurate) information.)

Jefferson Lines is the primary bus carrier operating between Des Moines and Ames, offering 3 scheduled buses daily. These are all direct routes without transfers, and the journey takes approximately 35-46 minutes to cover the 30-mile distance. The first bus from Des Moines to Ames departs at 4:20 am and the last bus leaves at 11:30 pm. Bus tickets generally cost around $20, but prices can vary by season with January typically offering the best deals (around $19) and October being more expensive (around $30).

Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA) provides public transportation throughout Story County, including between Des Moines and Ames, though with limited availability. Must schedule rides by calling HIRTA, ideally 2+ days in advance

CIT Signature Transportation provides professional shuttle services in Iowa, including between Des Moines and Ames. Their shuttles can accommodate up to 60 passengers and offer comfortable amenities with experienced drivers.

💡 it did not mention Lyft or Uber, which are probably more useful than many of these services.


Read More ...


Question 2: How many people commute between Des Moines and Ames?

In total, this suggests approximately 2,800-3,000 people may be commuting between these counties daily in both directions.


Question 3: How much would a bus-service offering 20 round-trips per day between Des Moines and Ames cost in CAPEX?

The number of buses needed depends on the route timing. Des Moines to Ames is about 30 miles, so each round trip would take approximately 1.5-2 hours including stops and turnaround time. To run 20 round-trips daily, you would need:

Buses: Assuming each bus can complete 4-5 round trips per day, you'd need 4-5 buses plus at least one backup bus. Mid-sized transit buses cost $250,000-400,000 each, so 5-6 buses would cost approximately $1,250,000-$2,400,000.

Additional CAPEX Elements

Bus Stop Infrastructure: $50,000-100,000 (basic shelters, signage, benches)

Maintenance Facility: $200,000-500,000 (small garage, basic equipment)

Technology Systems: $50,000-100,000 (ticketing, GPS tracking, scheduling software)

Initial Spare Parts Inventory: $50,000-100,000

Office Setup: $20,000-40,000

Total CAPEX Estimate

Total initial capital expenditure would range from approximately $1,620,000 to $3,240,000.


Question 4: What would the OPEX be of such a system?

Let's estimate the OPEX (Operating Expenditure) for your bus service between Des Moines and Ames with 20 daily round trips:

Drivers: Assuming 5 buses operating ~16 hours/day, you'll need 8-10 drivers (including coverage for days off) at $45,000-55,000 per driver annually = $360,000-550,000

Maintenance Staff: 2-3 mechanics at $50,000-60,000 each = $100,000-180,000

Administrative/Customer Service: 2-3 staff at $40,000-50,000 each = $80,000-150,000

Management: 1-2 positions at $70,000-90,000 each = $70,000-180,000

Benefits & Payroll Taxes: Approximately 30% of salary costs = $183,000-318,000

Fuel: Each bus traveling ~120 miles daily (30 miles x 4 trips) × 5 buses × 365 days = 219,000 miles annually

Diesel: At 6 MPG and $4.00/gallon = $146,000 annually

Maintenance & Repairs: Industry standard of $0.30-0.45 per mile = $65,700-98,550

Tires: Approximately $5,000-7,000 per bus annually = $25,000-42,000

Insurance: $15,000-25,000 per bus annually = $75,000-150,000

Facility Lease/Mortgage: $60,000-120,000 annually

Utilities: $24,000-36,000 annually

Technology & Software Subscriptions: $15,000-30,000 annually

Marketing & Advertising: $30,000-60,000 annually

Professional Services (accounting, legal): $20,000-40,000 annually

Permits & Licenses: $5,000-10,000 annually

Total Annual OPEX: $1,258,700-2,014,550

This translates to roughly $105,000-168,000 per month in operating expenses.


Question 5: With a $5/person cost, how many seats would need to be filled per day? Would the buses have enough capacity?

With a $5 fare, you would need:

690-1,104 passengers daily to break even

This represents a required occupancy rate of:

Low-end: 690 ÷ 1,200 = 58% capacity

High-end: 1,104 ÷ 1,400 = 79% capacity

The buses would technically have enough capacity to meet the break-even point, but the required occupancy rates are quite high, especially at the higher end of the cost estimate. Transit services typically operate profitably at 40-60% occupancy rates.

Some considerations:

Peak commuting hours might exceed capacity while off-peak hours run nearly empty

You might need to consider differential pricing (higher fares during peak hours)

The $5 fare might be too low for sustainable operations

Well, actually, the "low-end" calculation isn't quite right. The range should be 50% (690/1400) to 90% (1100/1200). Because the seat counts and the OPEX estimates aren't strongly related.

Also, it forgot to consider the CAPEX expenditure.


Question 6: What about CAPEX for that estimate?

Annual CAPEX Recovery

Assuming a 7-year depreciation period for buses and 10-year for facilities:

Low-end: $1,620,000 ÷ 7 = $231,429 annually

High-end: $3,240,000 ÷ 7 = $462,857 annually

Options to make the business more financially viable:

Increase the fare (e.g., $7-8 instead of $5)

Secure public subsidies or grants to offset CAPEX

Extend the depreciation period (e.g., 10-12 years instead of 7)

Generate additional revenue streams (advertising, package delivery, charter services)

Consider starting with fewer daily trips to reduce initial investment

2025-05-08 17:56:23

Recently, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had a variety of concurring opinions regarding the case of US v. Chatrie . ⚙️ ( https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224489.P.pdf )

The basic facts: in 2019, a bank in Virginia was robbed. The police used a geofence warrant to request information from Google related to the individuals with cell-phones in the vicinity of the crime. One of those individuals was Chatrie, who was later identified as the suspect. Chatrie eventually pled guilty, conditional to the geofence evidence being admissible.

My views align with none of the opinions in full.


1. Was this a "search"?

Yes. Google, through an informal process involving their own counsel and external law-enforcement, developed a three-step process for geofence warrants. That process is not freely available to all law-enforcement for any reason, but requires a warrant to be issued.

The detailed information is private; it includes the person's name, additional personal information, as well as their location. Furthermore, Google has a business interest in keeping this information private, and makes representations that it will do so to the extent of the law.

There is no way this was not a "search" in some form, governed by the protections of the 4th amendment.

I do have some amount of a contrary view to the 4th Amendment interpretation. There is no direct burden on the person being searched here. (At least as long as one assumes the search is against Chatrie, rather than Google). No government agents are entering houses, examining physical papers, etc. The extension of the 4th amendment to an abstract right of privacy-of-information, rather than security against physical intrusions, is not something I am willing to agree with in an unqualified manner.


2. Can a "geofence" warrant be allowed under probable cause? I give an unqualified "yes".

As a result, whether this specific geofence warrant complied with a not-yet-expounded procedure is irrelevant; the "good-faith" exception to exclusion of the information would apply, and the information would not be excluded regardless of whether this exact procedure is endorsed.

Several opinions specify that the first step of the process is (or at least should be) designed to not include any "private" information. Later steps, by contrast, contain sufficiently-detailed information as to be "uncloakable", or on-its-face identifying information. 💡 ( the arguments that the later steps should require a separate warrant are somewhat compelling; I take no position on them.)

In addition, Carpenter v. United States is frequently referenced, in the context of "cell-tower records". While the exact details of opt-in v. opt-out are heavily discussed, I personally don't find that a meaningful distinction.

The warrant clearly described the "place to be searched": Google records, as provided to the government by Google.

While some of the specific concerns (should each step of the process require a magistrate's approval) may be resolved differently, I see no way that the general concept of such a warrant is impermissible.

A warrant for a nearby business's security camera footage might have similar privacy issues, but it is clearly allowable. The fact that some of the individuals might have been "entering a private space" is not a reason to disallow it.

The arguments are focused on whether it was a search; once it is stipulated that it is a search, the overarching arguments against this type of search collapse. A "reasonable expectation of privacy" cannot prevent one from being subject to a warrant, and whether one is identified by name or as the person possessing a specific cell-phone is irrelevant.

A warrant does not require naming the exact individuals being searched, especially in a situation where they are not physically burdened by the search.


One additional footnote of note: The Fifth Circuit has held “that geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”

This is an aggressive take, far beyond the text of the Fourth Amendment.

One can imagine an argument that such a warrant will, necessarily, be a privacy violation. In fact, there is one argument in the case, presented as a hypothetical by Judger Berner: Obtaining a warrant would require probable cause to search all individuals who fall within a particular geofence. The government would thus need to show probable cause that every individual near the scene of a crime was involved in the crime or witnessed it.

That standard is wrong. A de minimis privacy violation, which occurs without the awareness of the person involved and does not lead to any harms against them, should not throw out the entire tree of evidence.


More broadly, the claim that technology that might violate a privacy right is inherently illegal when used for law-enforcement is absurd on its face. It is also not supported by the Constitution, federal law, or the population at-large.