JasSmith @ JasSmith @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

445

Joined

2 yr. ago

Definitely agree with that, but the tech is definitely not there to handle all situations, and as long as that’s the case, a human should be there.

I disagree. I think the bar should be "safer than a human." If our bar were "perfect," self driving would never be permitted without a human at the wheel.

I’m sure they really believe their opinions but I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that cycling is a panacea of awesome and everyone who opposes it is an oil shill. There are many real obstacles. Proponents often argue, “well just restructure society!”, as though that’s achievable or even desirable to many citizens.

That said, there are many ways to improve eco-friendly transport in cities. It just requires convincing locals that it’s better than driving. Selling this vision has been a catastrophic failure for activists. They need to stop arguing for a nebulous benefit which might benefit some future generation. They need to argue for why cycling is better today. If they can confidently prove it’s better, voters will support these measures.

After a lot of research I’ve come to the conclusion the only viable solution is bike lanes with a curb separating them and roads. As a mode of transport, bikes are as different from cars as they are from pedestrians. All three need their own lanes. Bikes make city traversal much more viable without a car.

Of course there are some caveats here. Not every city is well planned for cycling. Cities in the Netherlands have much higher density than places like Austin. If it takes 10km to get from your home to the grocery store, bicycle lanes are just less useful. Geography also matters. Holland is flat as a pancake. Many other places are not, and like it or not, hills suck for cycling unless you have an e-bike. Most people do not. Finally, weather matters. People in cold climates can dress warmer. People in hot climates cannot dress any cooler than shorts and t-shirt. If the temperature is hot for much of the year, or months at a time, people cannot rely on it for their commutes or errands. This makes cycling unviable for some hot cities.

Car free zones are great, but only when the public transport infrastructure can support it. If most people who come to the city live far away because of low density, public transport becomes very expensive to implement and maintain. People don’t want to jack up their taxes 10-20% to pay for that. Longer term planning should permit and encourage higher density, but there is a cultural component here. Some people really like having a house with a backyard. Apartments don’t offer this.

That’s a solved problem. Reputable universities only allow competent people to graduate. Ideally they only allow qualified candidates to enter the programs at all.

Americans pay on average 24.5% of their income on tax, plus state taxes, CGT, estate tax, fuel tax, etc. All in all, Americans pay a little under $5 trillion per year in taxes. On top of this, the government is projected to borrow an additional $2 trillion this year alone to pay for the ballooning national expenditure.

Someone is making a lot of money on the backs of taxpayers. Since it’s not going to healthcare, it bears some scrutiny.

I agree with him. If you want tax payers to pay for your higher education, in whole or part, they should expect some kind of measurable benefit to the state. Data shows poor benefits for the courses listed. You can still study those degrees. Just pay for it yourself. My taxes aren’t there for you to go on a personal journey of self exploration.

The price per barrel includes almost all those expenses, so inflation should be reflected there.

Right, which means that the inflation adjusted price of oil today is significantly lower than it was in 2008.

I don’t understand what you’re arguing. There has been no maintenance failure. They delayed maintenance during the recent energy crisis, but the reactors remain perfectly safe. Do you think pointing out the fact that reactors require maintenance is an argument against nuclear? Do you have any idea how much maintenance is required for wind and solar?

Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay rely on primarily hydro power. The same as Tasmania. You appear to be using the same argument as above, refusing to acknowledge that most countries are unable to utilise hydro power generation. Give me the case for how every other country in the world is able to rely on hydro. Show me your working. Provide some citations.

Can you imagine trying to shove netcode into Gamebryo? Id developers on their first day.

I wonder if the utterly generic and inoffensive stories are intentional. People LOVE to be outraged today. They tried to boycott the latest Harry Potter game because they hate J. K. Rowling. Maybe Bethesda is just trying to stay as far away from the outrage as possible, and the result is… this. Maybe all the interesting stories get canned or neutered and turned into side quests.

On the one hand I fully agree. They have plenty of resources to be working on multiple projects at once.

On the other, it’s very easy for studios to lose their way when spread too thin. There is value in staying focused.

On the third hand, it’s taking an absurdly long time to build their games now. It’s clear the Gamebryo/Creation Engine is no longer fit for purpose. I don’t give a fuck about object permanence for 10,000 cheese wheels. I want fewer loading screens, much better facial animations, much better lighting, much better performance, and MUCH better collision handling. Unreal proved YEARS ago that functionally unlimited polygon assets were achievable with good performance with dynamic mesh loading. Gamebryo is absolutely shitting the bed with the assets in Starfield. Maybe it wouldn’t take 5+ years to build these games if they weren’t shackled to Gamebryo.

Ah, the Disney defence. “Everyone who dislikes our movie is a racist/misogynist.”

Why do you think gas isn’t affected by inflation? Costs go up with inflation. This increases the price. Remember that the cost of the commodity itself is effectively zero. The cost is all in exploration, extraction, refinement, transport, and sale. All of that goes up with inflation.

But if you th8nknthats goldilocks, let’s look at France. It’s the most successful and pervasive nuclear power. And they are currently moving away from nuclear. Ouch.

“In February 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight.”

Tasmania has some great geography for hydro power, generating 90% of their power. Most places in the world don’t have such geography. Pointing to goldilocks locations as though they’re replicable everywhere isn’t well informed. Further, while hydro is less volatile than wind and solar, it still requires a reliable grid fallback during droughts. Tasmania has this with the Basslink. Without it, they would also require quick-fire coal and LNG plants on standby. Or, more likely, running permanently as the spool-up cost is very high.

No one is claiming nuclear is cheap and instant. We’re arguing that neglecting nuclear keeps coal and LNG consumption unnecessarily high.

I fully agree.

Which state? $2 in 2001 is worth $3.46 today thanks to inflation.

High interest rates and inflation hurt people with money and help people with debt. As interest rates rise, the value of assets decreases. The inverse relationship is strong and well tested. Debt, on the other hand, loses value with inflation. Inflation paid off 20% of my mortgage over the last few years.

No one likes high inflation. It’s definitely not a scheme to transfer wealth. That’s the status quo with 2% inflation and cheap debt for the wealthy to use.

It’s actually pretty well correlated once you remove state taxes, which have increased significantly in some states like California. Mississippi gas, for example, is cheaper now than 2010, with respect to crude prices and discounted for inflation.

Renewables are highly volatile and storage technology isn’t there yet for most large grids. Right now that stability must come from coal, LNG, or nuclear, with some exceptions like geothermal. Pick your poison. China is building 5-10 giant new coal plants per year to satisfy this demand, despite being one of the cheapest places in the world to manufacture solar panels and turbines. If we care about the environment, we’ll choose nuclear. Germany’s “green” party has successfully lobbied to effectively end nuclear support in the country, and now they have to significantly increase coal and lignite consumption following the Russian LNG embargo.

I don’t understand why nuclear has to be a dirty word. Modern reactors are clean and safe. Far better for the environment than coal and LNG.