Skasi @ Skasi @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

74

Joined

2 yr. ago

What exactly do you consider insane about it?

From this limited view pedestrians seem to have a pretty nice place there. Crosswalks are highlighted strongly and there's no traffic lights to slow down pedestrians so they have the priority and the necessary attention. Sidwalks seem wide enough as well.

Yes the road is wider than the bike path, but they each have one lane per direction and there don't appear to be any sharp turns. The bike lane should perhaps be a little wider, but if there's only a low number of cyclers it seems equal-ish.

I feel like the little "hill" where the bike lanes and crosswalk intersect should start earlier, that way bikes could come to a halt at the top of the hill and wouldn't have to accelerate through it, instead they could use it as a sort of break to build up potential energy for a little speed boost later on. Either way the hill seems like a decent idea considering bike drivers occasionally try to drive past pedestrians without a clear path, overestimating their agility - especially at high speeds.

While one could argue for a similar hill on the road, I'd consider that an unnecessary nuisance for the bus driver and passengers. Being shaken around while getting up for a stop is not a nice experience. A hill would also scratch the underside of a low-floor bus.

Ideally bus and tram stops should probably be placed just before a crossing, not after. That way the bus doesn't block view of pedestrians for cars coming from the opposite direction. The bus driver will usually have to stop for the station either way, so might as well combine the stop for the station with the stop for the crosswalk.

That said I'd argue it's more of a pedestrians > cars > bicycles or maybe even a pedestrians > cars/bycycles system. Not quite as bad as your suggestion, but still not ideal.

edits: Added a comment about bus stop location. Added comment on low-floor bus.

Finally found the person who keeps stealing wheels...

And what are you, a Klingon?

Qo'

The reason I use the term "human" is because this phenomenon seems to exist throughout all of history, it wasn't limited to one specific person or culture or era. This is also why I gave so many examples. If you think there's a better way to convey the point without using this term, let me know.

Is this similar to the ozone depletion and ozone holes that were always a big deal in the early 2000s and had lead to bans of chlorofluorocarbons eg in refrigerants and other products, or is this an entirely different topic?

To me it sounds similar so I wonder why the danger of Earth losing its atmosphere "very quickly" hadn't caused panic back then, it was only things like "stay inside so you don't get sunburns". Though the atmosphere disappearing would be a way bigger deal.

I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.

True! I tried to acknowledge that with my first paragraph and add that they already are greatly impacted. My second paragraph wasn't aimed at your person, I merely wanted to bring it up/let it out.

And a messed up ozone layer means the atmosphere will... disappear?

Just a heads up, you quoted me writing "kill all complex life (...) is exaggerating". Then as far as I understand you wrote "it absolutely is [an exaggeration]". Then you argued that surely microbes would survive. However, to my knowledge microbes do not count as complex life. Was that intentional?

will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.

What?

Well disruptions of a system eventually lead to new, different forms of stability where things will settle down. I can't imagine life is as fragile as you make it.

Having the ability to kill all complex life sounds like a misconception humans made up. After all, humankind always liked feeling important, feeling special and putting itself in the center: pretending they life at the center of a disc, pretending the whole universe revolves around the planet, pretending only human bodies were inhabited by an eternal soul, pretending an all-powerful being cared about them, pretending they're the peak of evolution, pretending machines could never outperform them.

Humans always try to find new things that make them unique and set them apart from other forms of life. Yet they keep getting disproven.

Do I understand this right that the really big argument here is actually ocean acidification? I can't really believe that this wouldn't open up niches for other life forms in oceans. I'm certain that complex animals will be greatly impacted - they already are - but temperature shifts will lead to animals migrating and complex life will keep flourishing one way or another.

I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans. To my understanding humans have about the same impact as many other of the more impactful species do and while many have lead to big changes on the planet, to my knowledge none have managed to come close to "ending all life". That's reserved for grander desasters, either from inside Earth or extraterrestrial.

Life existed long before there were any significant levels of oxygen in the air. I doubt humans can undo much of the ~20% oxygen level that exists today. And I think that's reason enough that life even bigger than microbes won't die out.

Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.

Why would all life perish? From what I've heard and read about nuclear disaster exclusion zones, humans disappearing tends to make space for other forms of life that had previously been displaced by cities full of humans and such. To my understanding long time life probably won't care about anything for the next few million years.

Short term many or most humans might die or suffer. I don't think it's easy to predict how fragile humankind is, civilization may crumble. I doubt all of humankind will be gone in a thousand years, though I wouldn't bet against a semi "post apocalyptic" future.

I feel like comparing OTTD to OpenLoco is a bit similar to comparing Freeciv to Freecol. OTTD and Freeciv just had so much more popularity and development. But OpenLoco and Freecol are still nice to try.

Of course! TTD and Locomotion were developed by the same person. From my understanding Locomotion is closer to the Roller Coaster Tycoon engine and UI. Also I think I remember reading an interview in which Chris Sawyer said Locomotion had the cleanest code out of the three.

On that note, considering the original engines are similar I wonder if OpenRCT2 and OpenLoco have any big similarities in the code base as well...

I imagine only way shorter people would have trouble pulling them off.

Having exactly 500 kg up to three decimal places would still be quite impressive!

I think the concept of "Pay what you want." is a very friendly approach to this. It already exists on platforms like itch.io and some free to play games financed through donations, like Dwarf Fortress, also became extremely popular. Humble Bundles are also pretty famous for this. And of course kickstarters do something a bit similar to this.

Personally I'd love to see donation buttons/infos especially for all the free music and games that exist out there. But I want to make sure my donations reach the people who actually worked on it, so I dislike products like paypal or patreon where a portion of the money goes to men in the middle and their managers/owners, etc. A bank account number or something along those lines where I can transfer money a bit more directly would be nice, but some creators only provide paypal buttons, so I won't donate.

I never played the game but watched some trailers and gameplay videos. I'm 99% certain that Helldivers 2 is following the Starship Troopers formula and purely making fun of patrionism, propaganda, war, the military, military personnel, "freedom", heroism, politics and military advertisements and turning that into a game. There's just so many obvious signs, it seems impossible to miss. In other words, it is a political game. Or maybe I just really don't get either of the two.

That's an interesting view/idea. Is that a reoccurring theme in politics? Like, I'm wondering if there have been similar cases and if yes how well did they work.

I can imagine something similar happening at school, where eg. kids who litter or destroy plants or furniture are assigned to cleanup/anti litter duty or to gardening work or to furniture maintenance. I think I remember seeing similar things, the idea being that it helps those kids learn to better understand the work that goes into such tasks and the value behind them. Basically it helps build your morals and values or something along those lines.

The way I see it maybe this decision could promote gender equality organisations that are active in Saudi Arabia. It could create or increase social awareness for this topic. Being given a responsibility can make you put more effort into it than you did before because suddenly the effort counts twice.