Cities aren't organic life. They don't "grow" without planning. You have everything from city planners to architects to road building companies participating.
Just because you can cite failures in this process, doesn't mean process isn't there. It simply means that process failed for some reason, and there's a need for correction. Which is just as much of a planned action as the city growth itself was.
That's what people call "city planning". If your city has problems of the kind and in magnitude you're implying, your city officials have failed at planning in a catastrophic fashion, and you should vote in people who will urgently act to fix these problems as one of the higher priority tasks in terms of budgeting.
Courts have a legal mandate to tell ISP what to do. And they are also required by law to issue such an order by democratically elected legislative body.
ISP has no such mandate, which is why your statement shows how badly they failed. You're forced to suggest that ISP and court are somehow similar in power in that ISP should have a right to reject a court order.
Yes, because it hijacks traffic for ideological/economic reasons. The moment you do that, your argument for being a dumb pipe is out of the window. You're now an entity exercising control over access for ideological/economic reasons. Which is exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Except that, of course, it was nothing like it. But since you've already shown yourself to be a bigot, it's not like you're going to suddenly stop with justifications for your innate desire to be a bigot and actually try to address it.
The obvious problem being that this support was bipartisan, as several pieces of evidence now clearly showed. The "social media ads"?
They supported both Clinton and Trump. The aim was clearly polarisation of the extremes of the supporting bases of each candidate, not supporting either of the candidates. You can see this in pretty much everything publicly released so far, from the facebook ads to the various reports.
Trump's popularity on the other hand doesn't drop for a very simple reason. Political smear jobs based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies have to take out their target quickly. If they don't, the audience of the target sees one lie, than another lie, and then they simply assume that everything else coming out of those sources is probably a lie. Which isn't helped by the fact that to maintain the narrative for the audience of those doing the smearing, the narrative has to become even more extreme. And we have seen so many lies about Trump and his purported actions that were just patently false on the face of it, it's genuinely hard at this point to take any critique of Trump without reacting "ok, show me the full context of this claim you have".
And context usually ends up like that infamous statement about "migrants", which actually referred to one of the most violent gangs on the planet when viewed in context. And so, the actors actually generating the smear jobs have very little chance of being taken seriously any more beyond their own audience. Too many failures. All they can do at this point is preach to the slowly shrinking choir.
Which is why you should be genuinely afraid of Trump if you're against his agenda. Not because of the contents of his agenda, or because of any of the smears. You should be afraid of him because there's one thing on which Bannon was completely correct in that Munk debate. Trump is the paradigm shift, where disenfranchised people actually found franchise, and where there are now too many people who have been disenfranchised by the globalist trend. To the point where it's not limited to the continent - Yellow Jackets was a part of the exact same paradigm shift in a country that is about as different as a country could be to US while still remaining a part of "Western" umbrella. Utterly different court system, literal codification of anti-theism into all government functions, very socialist policies. And yet, France had protests that literally showed that Trump's paradigm shift clearly happened in France too, and it reached a point where it cannot be simply dismissed as "those deplorable people that are beneath us that we will call names and dismiss as if they're irrelevant".
Hell, the entire point that leadership adhering to the will of the populace, "populism" is now considered a bad word in upper echelons of society shows just how badly fractured the political elite and ordinary people are becoming. All it takes is a capable person who genuinely cares for their plight, and you get Salvini.
These people are not irrelevant any more. They're starting to organise. And as a traditional leftie who voted social democrats in a Nordic country his whole life, it scares the shit out of me. Mostly because I find that when they make points of failures of globalist aspects of policy, I find myself forced to agree with them because of my social democratic principles. I believe that those most disenfranchised in the nation, the workers, the farmers, should have a clear and loud voice in how country is run. And then I look at the party I voted for my entire life, and many among them are parroting the anti-populist narrative and singing praises of policy that is pointedly ignoring and even aggressively dismissing the disenfranchised. And when you're a social democratic party, you do not get to do that and get away with it. That is against the very core principles your party stands for. You are supposed to stand for the disenfranchised. That's why I voted for you my entire life.
And so, like so many people on the centre left, I find myself without a political home. Without even being an American. All because of Trump showing the world the ugliness that was allowed to fester for so long in the Western political systems as globalism co-opted the democratic republics.
My points nothing of the sort, unless you're utterly incompetent worker who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They're the basics of negotiating with people. Literally, the thing that anyone with any degree of competence is usually taught either by their parents, or by their peers by example.
That said considering you projected this hard, I guess I know where I hit the nerve.
It would be indeed. Which is why I said no such thing. You're cutting words out of what I said to change the context into a completely different meaning.
Which is why I find it sad that you're doubling down on your misrepresentation of what I said to such a gross degree.
That's literally why I noted the "look for a better job while doing it".
If they tell you "no raises", you raise the stakes by noting all the ways it would hurt the company in current economic climate and job ratings if you left for a different job. And then make it clear that you're prepared to do that if you do not get a serious negotiation for a raise with whoever is responsible for it (usually the boss of your boss).
If your performance is good, and they refuse you without even hearing your case, you SHOULD leave ASAP. For your own long term benefit. I've watched someone who had the credentials staying in a job like that (she did get some raises after she and I had a long talk about how to go about it, but it started peaking and current economy here in Finland isn't nearly as good as it is in US). The company ended up in deep trouble because of the management issues, and she's now looking for alternatives. Which is a lot harder to do when you're not actively employed full time. And companies who have "no raises" policies have serious problems attracting and keeping people who can actually work the way it's needed to stay solvent in any competitive market.
Seriously, look for a job when you're employed. It's so much easier than when you're not.
Trolleybuses however have significant routing limitations, and cannot be easily shifted between routes in many cases. They're also very different in terms of how they're built compared to modern battery powered buses, that have challenges of their own. They're nowhere near as peak power limited, nor energy efficiency limited.
Every technology has a very unique set of challenges to be solved. Some experience is certainly shared among them.
Depends on whether they count inflation correction as "raise". There's a significant evidence that real salaries when inflation is counted for have in fact been stagnant on average for decades. With current monetary policy, the main reason why economy is getting overheated is lack of inflation due to low interest rates.
And it makes very little sense that there would be many years with statistics like you suggest, yet average salaries being stagnant over that period of time and not showing a clear statistical spike. So did formulation of the question include inflation correction and was that a time of significantly higher interest rates?
You may not have noticed, but there's a significant amount of attention that is getting paid by PR companies to social media on certain issues nowadays. And they don't really care about details, their job is to get eyeballs away from some points and on others.
Unfortunately EVs have a slew of problems of their own, such as how to generate heating, AC, etc effectively without the warm engine and many of its support systems being possible to tap for it. So while you have less complexity on ICE itself, you have more complexity on many of the supporting systems.
Notably, Musk himself made this point on his appearance on Rogan's podcast, by citing the problems they had making a workable AC system for the Tesla Roadster.
When it comes to bus repair, my understanding is that the supporting systems actually count for a significant amount of downtime, as many of those systems are under much more stress as they're exposed to passenger interaction. And unlike in a personal vehicle, people only take one drive in freezing cold or sweltering heat without heating/AC to reconsider using public transit again as just one example of such a system.
I'm saddened by how you removed context to make that critique. Did I hurt your feelings so much that you had to tear my argument down regardless of merits of it?
A standard ICE based bus run effectively all the time there's a need for it to be driven (i.e. when first people need to go to work to late evening revellers coming home), minus the necessary maintenance time. This is required for economic operation on city scale. Buses that aren't running should go into maintenance, preferably of preventative kind to ensure reliable running on actual routes. This raises confidence of time critical travellers that the bus will be there on time, and have them actually start relying on public transit instead of personal one.
That means that range effectively has to be infinite, with near zero time refuelling breaks. My understanding is that the way BYD et al address the issue is modern automated route planning software coupled with constant and careful observation of passenger flows. This way they have buses that can run for rush hour periods plus a few hours, so that during rush hour, fleet usage is maximized, and all of those buses can also handle being driven for an hour or two before and after rush hour. And during the less rushed hours before the rush hour and in the middle of the day, you can have less buses on the routes, during which time electric buses are recharged.
Unfortunately this strategy requires more buses being active and ready to use, so buy-in cost is significantly higher. You can't go with diesel strategy of "bus is driving all the time that is needed during active phase with drivers taking shifts". The range is simply not there.
So realistically, you need much more than 160km or so that you suggested if you were to do a 1:1 replacement, especially when you consider that this is transit during rush hours, with frequent acceleration cycles with high to maximum payload on long commuter lines. But as BYD already showed, and many European bus manufacturers like Solaris following suit, it's workable with advanced route planning software and sufficient fleet. So the problem is in process of being solved. I just worry that the goals set here may be too rigid due to being politically, rather than economically motivated/sound in terms of engineering. Public transit primarily serves those worst off, and the ideological part of green movement has a long standing tradition of pushing most of costs on the poorest strata of population.
Considering progress BYD and a couple of others are making on electric buses, there's a decent chance that they might make it around 2030s-2040s. Buses need replacement every 15 years or so in a developed country as repair costs begin making them less profitable than investing in new ones and donating the old ones to some less developed country. Note that these are Finnish numbers, may not apply in US, our buses pretty much all go to Estonia etc after ~15 years where work time of repair workers is significantly cheaper making older buses that need more time at the shop per distance driven economically viable.
So If they start putting in infrastructure, and phase out non-electric replacement units next year, they'll probably have much of infrastructure in place and buses actually being mostly fully electric by mid-2030s. 2040s at the latest. Time frame is tighter than optimal if they're actually aiming for 2029, but economy wise, it's probably doable without having to push significant raise on ticket prices, as operational costs of electric vehicles tend to be lower while buy-in and infrastructural costs higher. So if they equalize those against each other correctly, they may be able to get an implementation without having to raise ticket prices.
And once infrastructure is in place, it's just higher buy price vs lower usage and fuel costs.
He can't stop. He's been stalking me on slashdot for quite a long time now after I exposed his science denialism for everyone including himself in that one thread.
It takes deep emotional pain to drive someone to stalk someone for extended duration. I half want to apologise to him at this point, because it's clear that I caused severe emotional distress where I didn't actually intend to do such a thing.
Then I look at his behaviour while being in distress, and I think that he actually got what he deserves.
Most of the "very green" people are ideological. In my experience, to the point where there's no real differentiator between "ideology" and "godless religion" like Buddhism.
(Referring to actual Buddhists in Asia rather than the hip Buddhists in the West).
It's the moderately green people that are reasonable and can be convinced via logic and facts. Because they arrived at their position not because they looked for something to replace what seems to be the void in them that would be filled with traditional religious belief throughout most of history of humanity as species. But because they looked for something that would explain changes around them, and how they could be affected by their actions, as individuals or on a collective level.
Unfortunately like on most topics, it's the religious ones that will scream over everyone, making themselves heard and everyone else silent.
Slashdot Mirror
Cities aren't organic life. They don't "grow" without planning. You have everything from city planners to architects to road building companies participating.
Just because you can cite failures in this process, doesn't mean process isn't there. It simply means that process failed for some reason, and there's a need for correction. Which is just as much of a planned action as the city growth itself was.
That's what people call "city planning". If your city has problems of the kind and in magnitude you're implying, your city officials have failed at planning in a catastrophic fashion, and you should vote in people who will urgently act to fix these problems as one of the higher priority tasks in terms of budgeting.
Notice that one word that you put back into the quote that was missing from his statement.
Courts have a legal mandate to tell ISP what to do. And they are also required by law to issue such an order by democratically elected legislative body.
ISP has no such mandate, which is why your statement shows how badly they failed. You're forced to suggest that ISP and court are somehow similar in power in that ISP should have a right to reject a court order.
Yes, because it hijacks traffic for ideological/economic reasons. The moment you do that, your argument for being a dumb pipe is out of the window. You're now an entity exercising control over access for ideological/economic reasons. Which is exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
They really dropped the ball on this one.
Except that, of course, it was nothing like it. But since you've already shown yourself to be a bigot, it's not like you're going to suddenly stop with justifications for your innate desire to be a bigot and actually try to address it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of an "all porn on tumblr by creator" torrent in near future.
The obvious problem being that this support was bipartisan, as several pieces of evidence now clearly showed. The "social media ads"?
They supported both Clinton and Trump. The aim was clearly polarisation of the extremes of the supporting bases of each candidate, not supporting either of the candidates. You can see this in pretty much everything publicly released so far, from the facebook ads to the various reports.
Trump's popularity on the other hand doesn't drop for a very simple reason. Political smear jobs based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies have to take out their target quickly. If they don't, the audience of the target sees one lie, than another lie, and then they simply assume that everything else coming out of those sources is probably a lie. Which isn't helped by the fact that to maintain the narrative for the audience of those doing the smearing, the narrative has to become even more extreme. And we have seen so many lies about Trump and his purported actions that were just patently false on the face of it, it's genuinely hard at this point to take any critique of Trump without reacting "ok, show me the full context of this claim you have".
And context usually ends up like that infamous statement about "migrants", which actually referred to one of the most violent gangs on the planet when viewed in context. And so, the actors actually generating the smear jobs have very little chance of being taken seriously any more beyond their own audience. Too many failures. All they can do at this point is preach to the slowly shrinking choir.
Which is why you should be genuinely afraid of Trump if you're against his agenda. Not because of the contents of his agenda, or because of any of the smears. You should be afraid of him because there's one thing on which Bannon was completely correct in that Munk debate. Trump is the paradigm shift, where disenfranchised people actually found franchise, and where there are now too many people who have been disenfranchised by the globalist trend. To the point where it's not limited to the continent - Yellow Jackets was a part of the exact same paradigm shift in a country that is about as different as a country could be to US while still remaining a part of "Western" umbrella. Utterly different court system, literal codification of anti-theism into all government functions, very socialist policies. And yet, France had protests that literally showed that Trump's paradigm shift clearly happened in France too, and it reached a point where it cannot be simply dismissed as "those deplorable people that are beneath us that we will call names and dismiss as if they're irrelevant".
Hell, the entire point that leadership adhering to the will of the populace, "populism" is now considered a bad word in upper echelons of society shows just how badly fractured the political elite and ordinary people are becoming. All it takes is a capable person who genuinely cares for their plight, and you get Salvini.
These people are not irrelevant any more. They're starting to organise. And as a traditional leftie who voted social democrats in a Nordic country his whole life, it scares the shit out of me. Mostly because I find that when they make points of failures of globalist aspects of policy, I find myself forced to agree with them because of my social democratic principles. I believe that those most disenfranchised in the nation, the workers, the farmers, should have a clear and loud voice in how country is run. And then I look at the party I voted for my entire life, and many among them are parroting the anti-populist narrative and singing praises of policy that is pointedly ignoring and even aggressively dismissing the disenfranchised. And when you're a social democratic party, you do not get to do that and get away with it. That is against the very core principles your party stands for. You are supposed to stand for the disenfranchised. That's why I voted for you my entire life.
And so, like so many people on the centre left, I find myself without a political home. Without even being an American. All because of Trump showing the world the ugliness that was allowed to fester for so long in the Western political systems as globalism co-opted the democratic republics.
My points nothing of the sort, unless you're utterly incompetent worker who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They're the basics of negotiating with people. Literally, the thing that anyone with any degree of competence is usually taught either by their parents, or by their peers by example.
That said considering you projected this hard, I guess I know where I hit the nerve.
Post boxes and shell companies exist for just such a thing.
It would be indeed. Which is why I said no such thing. You're cutting words out of what I said to change the context into a completely different meaning.
Which is why I find it sad that you're doubling down on your misrepresentation of what I said to such a gross degree.
That's literally why I noted the "look for a better job while doing it".
If they tell you "no raises", you raise the stakes by noting all the ways it would hurt the company in current economic climate and job ratings if you left for a different job. And then make it clear that you're prepared to do that if you do not get a serious negotiation for a raise with whoever is responsible for it (usually the boss of your boss).
If your performance is good, and they refuse you without even hearing your case, you SHOULD leave ASAP. For your own long term benefit. I've watched someone who had the credentials staying in a job like that (she did get some raises after she and I had a long talk about how to go about it, but it started peaking and current economy here in Finland isn't nearly as good as it is in US). The company ended up in deep trouble because of the management issues, and she's now looking for alternatives. Which is a lot harder to do when you're not actively employed full time. And companies who have "no raises" policies have serious problems attracting and keeping people who can actually work the way it's needed to stay solvent in any competitive market.
Seriously, look for a job when you're employed. It's so much easier than when you're not.
If your water actually tastes metallic to such a great degree, it's probably not safe to drink in the first place.
YMMV obviously, and placebo/nocebo effect is a problem of its own.
Trolleybuses however have significant routing limitations, and cannot be easily shifted between routes in many cases. They're also very different in terms of how they're built compared to modern battery powered buses, that have challenges of their own. They're nowhere near as peak power limited, nor energy efficiency limited.
Every technology has a very unique set of challenges to be solved. Some experience is certainly shared among them.
Depends on whether they count inflation correction as "raise". There's a significant evidence that real salaries when inflation is counted for have in fact been stagnant on average for decades. With current monetary policy, the main reason why economy is getting overheated is lack of inflation due to low interest rates.
And it makes very little sense that there would be many years with statistics like you suggest, yet average salaries being stagnant over that period of time and not showing a clear statistical spike. So did formulation of the question include inflation correction and was that a time of significantly higher interest rates?
You may not have noticed, but there's a significant amount of attention that is getting paid by PR companies to social media on certain issues nowadays. And they don't really care about details, their job is to get eyeballs away from some points and on others.
Frankly at this point, if you're a healthy individual that can do work and do live in US, and you're still unemployed? It's not the economy.
Unfortunately EVs have a slew of problems of their own, such as how to generate heating, AC, etc effectively without the warm engine and many of its support systems being possible to tap for it. So while you have less complexity on ICE itself, you have more complexity on many of the supporting systems.
Notably, Musk himself made this point on his appearance on Rogan's podcast, by citing the problems they had making a workable AC system for the Tesla Roadster.
When it comes to bus repair, my understanding is that the supporting systems actually count for a significant amount of downtime, as many of those systems are under much more stress as they're exposed to passenger interaction. And unlike in a personal vehicle, people only take one drive in freezing cold or sweltering heat without heating/AC to reconsider using public transit again as just one example of such a system.
Did you notice how you had to remove context for every single critique you made, and instead invent a completely new one?
That's because you're not critiquing the points I made.
I'm saddened by how you removed context to make that critique. Did I hurt your feelings so much that you had to tear my argument down regardless of merits of it?
A standard ICE based bus run effectively all the time there's a need for it to be driven (i.e. when first people need to go to work to late evening revellers coming home), minus the necessary maintenance time. This is required for economic operation on city scale. Buses that aren't running should go into maintenance, preferably of preventative kind to ensure reliable running on actual routes. This raises confidence of time critical travellers that the bus will be there on time, and have them actually start relying on public transit instead of personal one.
That means that range effectively has to be infinite, with near zero time refuelling breaks. My understanding is that the way BYD et al address the issue is modern automated route planning software coupled with constant and careful observation of passenger flows. This way they have buses that can run for rush hour periods plus a few hours, so that during rush hour, fleet usage is maximized, and all of those buses can also handle being driven for an hour or two before and after rush hour. And during the less rushed hours before the rush hour and in the middle of the day, you can have less buses on the routes, during which time electric buses are recharged.
Unfortunately this strategy requires more buses being active and ready to use, so buy-in cost is significantly higher. You can't go with diesel strategy of "bus is driving all the time that is needed during active phase with drivers taking shifts". The range is simply not there.
So realistically, you need much more than 160km or so that you suggested if you were to do a 1:1 replacement, especially when you consider that this is transit during rush hours, with frequent acceleration cycles with high to maximum payload on long commuter lines. But as BYD already showed, and many European bus manufacturers like Solaris following suit, it's workable with advanced route planning software and sufficient fleet. So the problem is in process of being solved. I just worry that the goals set here may be too rigid due to being politically, rather than economically motivated/sound in terms of engineering. Public transit primarily serves those worst off, and the ideological part of green movement has a long standing tradition of pushing most of costs on the poorest strata of population.
Considering progress BYD and a couple of others are making on electric buses, there's a decent chance that they might make it around 2030s-2040s. Buses need replacement every 15 years or so in a developed country as repair costs begin making them less profitable than investing in new ones and donating the old ones to some less developed country. Note that these are Finnish numbers, may not apply in US, our buses pretty much all go to Estonia etc after ~15 years where work time of repair workers is significantly cheaper making older buses that need more time at the shop per distance driven economically viable.
So If they start putting in infrastructure, and phase out non-electric replacement units next year, they'll probably have much of infrastructure in place and buses actually being mostly fully electric by mid-2030s. 2040s at the latest. Time frame is tighter than optimal if they're actually aiming for 2029, but economy wise, it's probably doable without having to push significant raise on ticket prices, as operational costs of electric vehicles tend to be lower while buy-in and infrastructural costs higher. So if they equalize those against each other correctly, they may be able to get an implementation without having to raise ticket prices.
And once infrastructure is in place, it's just higher buy price vs lower usage and fuel costs.
He can't stop. He's been stalking me on slashdot for quite a long time now after I exposed his science denialism for everyone including himself in that one thread.
It takes deep emotional pain to drive someone to stalk someone for extended duration. I half want to apologise to him at this point, because it's clear that I caused severe emotional distress where I didn't actually intend to do such a thing.
Then I look at his behaviour while being in distress, and I think that he actually got what he deserves.
Your projection of your personality on me would be adorable, if it didn't say a lot of negative things about your personality.
Most of the "very green" people are ideological. In my experience, to the point where there's no real differentiator between "ideology" and "godless religion" like Buddhism.
(Referring to actual Buddhists in Asia rather than the hip Buddhists in the West).
It's the moderately green people that are reasonable and can be convinced via logic and facts. Because they arrived at their position not because they looked for something to replace what seems to be the void in them that would be filled with traditional religious belief throughout most of history of humanity as species. But because they looked for something that would explain changes around them, and how they could be affected by their actions, as individuals or on a collective level.
Unfortunately like on most topics, it's the religious ones that will scream over everyone, making themselves heard and everyone else silent.