PuddleOfKittens @ PuddleOfKittens @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

55

Joined

9 mo. ago

He was originally Australian:

Andrew grew up in Australia and now lives in the Hoboken, New Jersey with his wife. Andrew’s motivation is to create a great place that he and his wife, and one day their children and their future generations will want to call home.

(from the 'about' page)

So just to be clear: a cube truck (like in the top picture in that wikipedia link) is 2meters wide. A 6 meter wide road can have 2 cube trucks, passing eachother by, while still having room between both eachother and the walls. Also, you can literally park a cube truck in front of your store to unload it, and there's room for another cube truck to go around it.

In fact, I've been to this one street of warehouses (literally a street of warehouses, in an industrial area) whose road couldn't have been more than 10m, wall-to-wall, and I didn't see them having throughput problems. People massively overestimate how important throughtput is, mainly because the throughput they look for is passenger cars.

Also: Deliveries don't need to be cube trucks. There are other options - vans, cargo bikes and bike-trailers, literally just walking in with a tray of the delivery, whatever. The smaller the street, the smaller the businesses should be, and the less throughput they should need.

I can't tell what A.A.P.'s (the link guy's) beliefs on this are, but generally the answer is either 1) it's fine (see: the cube truck thing), 2) arterial streets every ~5 blocks (that are wide and primarily for cars), or 3) trains. Or some mixture of them all.

with supermarkets, do we build service lanes designed more for delivery trucks

As a quick aside, before I answer that: Honestly, supermarkets suck and mostly make sense when people are carrying their shopping by car. Smaller shops work just fine.

To answer your question: I don't think so, but don't quote me on that. Supermarkets receive... one or two trucks per day? And supermarkets are big (partially due to wide aisles to handle the trolleys needed to buy a whole carload of goods, to be fair). So I don't think they're that important.

Why? No.

The automobile - pronounce it out loud, you'll say it something like "ow-toe moh-beel", i.e. in a German accent. Because Germans invented cars.

The assault rifle. They invented the concept, a handful of prototypes without the relevant doctrine (or for the 1890s one, even a detachable magazine) is irrelevant. Fight me, @bluewing.

If Russia drops a bomb, then NATO immediately deploys conventional bombs with their own air force on all Russian forces in Ukraine, and China/India both sanction Russia (which basically means the whole world is sanctioning Russia, since nobody will want to piss off the USA and EU and China and India - even NK might sanction Russia).

In other words, if Moscow drops a nuke then their military and their economy both disintegrate.

Oh absolutely, it's asinine. But it does avoid Pokemon Red as prior art.

"In a 3D space" rules out Pokemon Red. Still bullshit, though.

I think tanks would be their best bet - mounted machine guns and can carry lots of ammo, and if they're surrounded and about to be overrrun then they can just drive away - through the zombies. It's a tank, it has torque up the wazoo.

Actually, no, barbed wire would be their best bet - the blade doesn't have to move if the zombies slice themselves apart on it.

In practice, just use both!

I'm not saying that Elon Musk deserves his wealth, I'm saying the premise of the meme is nonsense.

These numbers are made up - specifically, they're made up by the stock market. If you actually think Elon Musk has $273 billion dollars, I have some Saudi shares in Twitter to sell you.

The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they're monstrous and) they're useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it'll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.

Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that'll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there's one slight problem before you advance: there's a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.

In other words, it's an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.

Is it AC or DC?

The right wing has been making loads of pro-Russia noise, but do also try not to alienate their popular support too much before they're in power.

Realistically, Trump will sell out Ukraine to Russia if he's offered a good deal, but there's no point publicly destroying his ability to welch on supporting Russia before he's paid to support them (if you can't afford to walk away, you can't afford to negotiate), and there's no point in Russia paying him before he's actually in power and able to make the US govt cave in the first place.

You don't just spam jump, you wedge yourself under an arch or something so that you can trigger more jumps per second.

If Bethesda started giving a shit, they'd just overhaul+bugfix their existing engine, rather than switching. Switching engine is entirely unnecessary, because it's not the problem.

Their engine is not hamstringing them. Plenty of good games have shipped with Gamebryo/Creation engine, without massive numbers of bugs.

The problem is that Bethesda doesn't give a shit about fixing anything - they ship bugs that have been in previous games, that users have outright identified and fixed for said previous games. They apply the exact same we-don't-give-a-shit attitude to their engine.

Also every engine is "20 years old", Source2 has some code from GoldSrc and Quake Engine, because if the code works perfectly then you don't just rewrite it for no reason. You rewrite parts of the engine - the parts that are holding you back in some way. And Bethesda has been modifying and extending their engine.

But, ignoring all of that, suppose the engine really was the issue: it takes 5ish years to write an engine from scratch. Starfield was in development for 8 years. Skyrim released 13 years ago. Skyrim also released 2 years ago, and a couple of times in between those periods too. Bethesda could have rewritten their entire engine from scratch if they wanted to, in that time.

The problem is that Bethesda just doesn't give a shit about quality, they chose their engine development choice by development choice. The problem is that Bethesda.