I once got really stoned and fell asleep while listening to it on a loop. I had all these insane dreams where I was walking through a pitch black jungle. I could feel all this stuff, the different textures of plants, the ground under foot, animals brushing by in the night, but I couldn't see anything: a totally non-visual dream. It wasn't scary, just super weird. Never experienced anything like it before or since.
I don't think there is one, unfortunately. I agree that lack of ideological diversity is a problem with the Fediverse in general, but it's a problem that likely won't go away unless the Fediverse becomes mainstream.
I think other people have answered the first half of the question adequately. I'm curious as to why you particularly want it to start up again, given that it previously 'faded away'.
The serious psychos are in and out of jail. The ones who were just kinda dicks sometimes (which to be honest probably includes me) are basically okay. And why shouldn't we be? Being a dick when you're still learning to be a person shouldn't carry a life sentence of any kind.
If we conceive of ethics as rooted in duty or virtue, rather than outcomes, we can then argue that simply doing your duty or being virtuous are good regardless of whether they lead to harm reduction or mitigation. The people here who have suggested just doing your job well (a duty) or being polite (a virtue) are putting forward a model of ethics based on these ideas.
I'm a climber so I mainly focus on strength, where I got some gains pretty quickly when I started lifting. In terms of looking fitter, probably after six months to a year my muscles were looking noticeably more defined, I'd say, but I was starting from a point of being pretty thin.
As discussed in this article, the government is busily ignoring its own reports and its own advisers. Instead, they're trying to make it harder to implement life-saving policies like ULEZ, LTNs and 20mph zones, and even trying to make it harder for councils to fine motorists who break the law (more great stuff from 'the party of law and order'!).
There's no such thing as road tax, but full duty, which motorists do pay, has not risen. It's been frozen for, I think, 14 years. Hunt froze it again the Budget just the other day! There may be other car-specific taxes I'm not aware of and you're sort of right that the overall tax burden has increased, but I don't know how much that applies to motorists specifically.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to add: there's one important sense in which clean air policies benefit motorists more than anybody, because the people most exposed to air pollution are people in cars. So, proven effective clean air policies like ULEZ certainly benefit motorists' health, which is why I described the government's new strategy as 'supposedly' pro-motorist. Not sure you can describe a policy to make people breathe poisonous air as 'pro' that group!
My top recommendation for 'fantastical [...] with amazing first person descriptive prose' is Piranesi by Susanna Clarke. It's beautiful and unlike anything you've ever read. I've bought it for three or four different people now and they've all loved it. Couldn't recommend it more highly, a genuine five star read.
Other people have already said Ulysses and Mrs Dalloway, both modernist classics that take place in a single day. There are a couple of other examples of similar novels, but the only one that springs to mind right now is a deeply annoying experimental 'novel' called Fidget by Oliver Goldsmith, which I don't recommend at all. He wore a tape recorder and spoke out loud describing everything he did that day, then transcribed it all and that's the book. If you do decide to read it, don't say I didn't warn you.
I don't know if this will count for you, but there's a hypertext novel called 253 by Geoff Ryman which IIRC takes place over just a couple of minutes, with very short chapters describing the thoughts of each of the 253 passengers on board a train. He did later also publish a print version.
The Tories loves burying a report. Theresa May did the same thing at the Home Office: she commission a report to try and 'prove' that immigration was bad for the economy, but the report found the exact opposite at every single level, so they sat on it for ages, till I think it was either leaked or someone managed to FOI it.
I'm not entirely clear why you feel (re)designing cities around walking/cycling is a patronising policy, but designing cities around cars isn't. If the answer is, 'because cars aren't good for you', it seems like your stance would have to be 'cities should be designed around what's bad for you, otherwise it's patronising', and I don't think that can be what you believe!
LTNs make life easier for everyone who doesn't use a car which, in inner city London, where many of these studies were conducted, means the majority. So, it's not about maliciously targeting people with cars but benevolently targeting the majority who don't have them.
I didn't personally find the tone of this article smug, but again: it's not about making life harder for people who want to drive or preventing them from doing what they want (because after all everyone can still drive if they choose to), but enabling people to safely do what they want when they want to walk and cycle. LTNs make walking more pleasant and safer; there's even some evidence they reduce crime! So, as you're someone who walks a lot but doesn't particularly enjoy it (sorry about that), LTNs ought to make things a bit better for you.
Finally, LTNs are about as likely to reduce journey times for motorists as they are to increase them, so the net effect on motorists way well be neutral. Again, this doesn't strike me as the kind of outcome I'd want if I were maliciously targeting motorists.
He's standing down at the next general election anyway, so this isn't about saving his seat.