The Count Dankula kerfuffle certainly shows what side the UK stands for. What a fucking waste of taxpayer money that was.
Indeed, if you're an F1 millionaire you can get away with Nazi themed sex parties with prostitutes dressed as concentration camp guards and have the newspapers silenced so they can't report on it (at least for a time). If you're a nobody and you post a video showing you pranking your girlfriend by teaching her cute dog to do a Nazi salute you get charged with a hate crime
Tackling homelessness and taking homeless people off the street improves location desirability, which increases people's desire to live and work there.
You are assuming that the new spending will actually be effective. That may or may not be true. Homelessness is a difficult problem to solve, and SF already has plenty of shelters and programs that don't work. More spending on homelessness will also pull more homeless people from other areas of the country, which may actually make the problem worse on the streets of San Francisco.
Regarding your first point. Yes, I'm assuming the spend the money wisely. Naturally there is a good chance that they won't. I'm being an optimist for now.
For your second point; homeless people don't tend to travel far from where they live. Often they lack the means to. A large percent suffer from mental disorders (which is why they're homeless in the first place) and many become addict to drugs or alcohol as a crutch. They're not going to leave their suppliers.
Most homeless people are not reading internet news either so won't know about San Francisco helping the homeless.
Steeling someone else's money and redistributing it has always failed. This won't work out. The real cause is these people are all drug addicts.
Actually, a great deal of them have mental disorders or psychological disorders which is why they're homeless in the first place and can't get a job. Many probably are drug addicts, some probably were drug addicts before being homeless, and some homelessness caused them to turn to drugs.
A large number of them though, their biggest crime is neither being wealthy enough, nor having family that were wealthy enough, to provide them adequate mental health care to allow them to lead normal lives. The mental issues also make them more susceptible to allow themselves to become hooked on drugs as a crutch. So yeah, you can hew and haw, and feel mighty superior in your comfy office and look down at the homeless and quote how we shouldn't help those dirty drug addicts, but that's really a dick attitude to take.
Yup, next time I see someone homeless in my area, instead of giving them $5. I'll take them to the bus station and buy them a ticket to San Fran.
Although you joke; New York has done just that. They've paid to have homeless people shipped elsewhere. Other than government intrusion though- homeless people don't tend to wander much- they're not going to go to SF unless someone does buy them a bus ticket.
In reality, it will probably have the opposite effect.
Tackling homelessness and taking homeless people off the street improves location desirability, which increases people's desire to live and work there. Besides do you really want the mega corporations and America's financial engine to leave California?
If they go to your red state they will bring urbanization with them. Urban areas tend to lean to the left and rural areas to the right. If large corporations left California, they would take leftist ideas with them. Your red state might turn blue.
It's a slippery slope. Next month, France wants him to appear, then Spain and Italy, then Angola and China.
So what? What if he ends up going to 20 different countries? He is operating a multinational company and he needs to respect them. If he is operating within a country and doesn't show respect to that ruling body, I hope he get's punished.
I hope when the UK next considers tax laws they do remember this. There's a lot of talk about how big companies like Facebook dodge paying taxes, I hope this event is considered when the UK next looks at how to change that.
to say nothing about inviting the asking of serious questions about the power of the state to censor, etc.
The UK already does censor. There are things called super injunctions that rich people and royals can use to silence the press when they do something embarrassing (and the newspaper's are not even allowed to admit they're being censored when it happens). There is also already censorship of certain types of consensual pron. UK regularly censors what is on children's shows. Some shows from America have to be reworded before being allowed to be shown in UK or get banned altogether. And... don't forget hate speech. You can be arrested just for saying something hateful about a minority.
In many ways Britain is a free and forwards-looking country- but in many other ways it is a censor-heavy contradiction of itself and what it purportedly believes in. I love the UK but it has some back-ass censorship laws in place. They're not going to block Facebook; but, don't act surprised if Britain censors anything. The government certainly reserves the right and there is no written constitution that forbids them.
He must have better things to do than fly around the world explaining things
Then the UK Parliament must keep whatever assumptions they have about Zuck without him having a chance to defend himself or his company, and legislate accordingly.
It seems to me that logic doesn't give a clear answer, as (1) cooperation may help your civilization to grow and exploit more faster; development is not a zero sum game; (2) any alien civilization should also expect that there is probably out there a more advanced alien civilization that it would need to compete with, and it might aid and use ally itself with smaller threats to defend itself against the larger threat. Ultimately, which approach is taken would probably be decided more by the context in which the alien society evolved.
When it comes to gambling the future of humanity- I tend to be risk adverse. I'd rather carry on with the status quo of no alien interference than gamble that they might help progress us (with the flip side being that they might wipe us off the face of the earth).
Yeah that little eugenics intuition "seems right" but guess what? it isn't.
The fact is, the thing that separates us most from animals, what makes us "more intelligent" than them, is the very fact that we started farming. Growing our own food. The perversion of farming living things came later and was a step back. Ebb and flow and all.
The increase in calories allowed us to have more for stoking our brains; but the fact is, we evolved from already smart creatures. Chimpanzees aren't farmers and they're already close to us in intelligence. I think that the ability for us to start farming is proof of intelligence already existing.
Based on what we know about animals on earth: the animals that are most intelligent are usually hunting animals; they may be omnivores, but by and large, most of the intelligent animals on earth do some hunting. (there are exceptions such as elephants of course). In general, to be a successful herbivore you need to be able to hide, or you need to be able to run fast. To be a successful predator or omnivore, a little intelligence can help.
Think humans, chimps, dolphins, pigs, dogs, crows, bears, octopuses, most of the more intelligent animals eat some meat when they can and hunt others.
So, any alien species that is intelligent probably evolved from omnivore or carnivore predecessors. From a personality standpoint that could mean many things, but it certainly would involve some view that some animals are beneath them and that life gives way for life.
We are more likely to encounter a species of bear-like predators than cow-like pacifists.
If we're not alone in the universe- I would like to know about our neighbours before they know about us.
Sending an unsolicited welcome beacon into the night could be catastrophic. If they're able to read it and respond they're probably more advanced than us. If they're more advanced than us they might not want to share the galaxy with another species who one day might evolve to challenge them or threaten them. There is no guarantee that any aliens out there would share our sentimentality to life. Or even want to meet alien species.
If their civilization has advanced far enough to be guided by Artificial Intelligence, certainly AI would decide the logical thing to do is remove a future threat before it becomes a threat. This isn't Star Trek, you can't guarantee that Mr. and Mrs. Greenface want to drink Romulan Ale with you and be best buds with you. Any species that survives to the space age needs some logic. Logic will tell you intelligent alien species could be a potential threat.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they don't seem to have a coherent message or platform beyond "We're not Republicans."
That's because the democrats are a very fractured party at the moment. Their moderates and their hardliners (and there is a lot more spread than previous years) have very different goals and ambitions.
In the current political climate with Trump being as unpopular and divisive as he is; "We're not Republicans" might be a powerful enough message by itself.
Neither party have a compelling message at the moment.
Republicans: "Make America White Again" Democrats: "We're not with Stupid."
Neither is really a roadmap for peace and prosperity.
Obamacare was a good start but the GOP stopped the next steps from happening.
The main problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it's goal was "Health Insurance For Everyone". Health Insurance is the main problem why we have the inflationary costs in Medical Care in the first place.
Medical Providers set high prices because they assume patients have insurance and that insurance companies will try to negotiate down so set ridiculous prices. Insurance companies under pressure to cover as many doctors as possible, so pay ridiculous fees that some of the higher priced doctors charge. Other doctors raise prices to match and the whole thing spirals upwards with the consumers paying the cost.
There are two solutions.
1) A federal level health care system that regulates prices. (obviously many on the left want this but the right don't)
2) Some market based system that will keep the prices down. Currently, there are plenty of mechanisms that make the prices go up- but there is nothing in place to encourage prices to go down. There is no reason for Doctor B to charge less than Doctor A. Insurance companies don't care- they just pass on the cost to the consumer. Doctors certainly don't want to get less for the same procedure than their peers.
Ultimately, the only way a consumer will go to a lower priced doctor (an thus apply pressure for doctors to keep costs down) would be if a consumer pays a percent of each visit themselves up front (not just a copay) and
a) Knows how much something is going to cost before going. b) Has some method of comparing the difference in prices.
Ultimately, I think a national health care system would be the best solution- but perhaps a compromise that both sides of spectrum could agree on because it would cost individuals and the state less would be a system I call McWeanyCare:
Where costs are given up front and are easily comparable (perhaps average charge to customers for last 12 months displayed outside a doctor's office much like a food grade is given - or an online database).
Instead of insurance companies for all health care- people are allowed (and encouraged) to have a Health Savings Account for non emergency care that is not taxed. Insurance should be for catastrophic coverage only. Drugs should be covered under price gouging rules (companies not allowed to randomly mark up drugs 500% for example without a court order).
For cases of poverty the government would have to help (they already do so no change here) - not everyone can afford a HSA, perhaps the government provide the first $x (probably cheaper than what the state pays today with existing programs once health costs go down).
Universal Insurance coverage as suggested by the Affordable Care Act is NOT the Answer- it is the cause of the problem in the first place. Insurance companies are the reason we pay so much now. They feed the inflationary cycle (that and non-clear doctor pricing).
Article Paywalled and the paragraph at top didn't even say which two cities are getting the Amazon HQ. You would have thought they would of included that important information.
Indeed winter time is when noon means "Sun at highest peak".
However, most people who want to eliminate time changes are asking for year-round DST. That's because DST is already more than 6 months of the year and business opening and closing is more based on DST than it is "winter time". Yes, that is effectively moving "a time zone to the East" but unfortunately businesses all start an hour earlier than they historically did. Who here starts work at "9am"? When did your office last start at 9am? 8am has become the standard- DST is probably to blame for that. We've already adjusted all our clocks to be "one time zone to the East," at least in the US, because of DST. It would be an easier transition to go to DST being the standard than it would be to go back to winter time.
If we go back to Winter Time businesses won't start closing at 4 by standard, they will stay at 5 and people want that extra hour of sun in the evening. It's easier to change time zone than it is to change ingrained standard work-hours.
Since it's mostly automated it's weird that people would be so upset....but sure, if it actually serves no purpose anymore then get rid of it.
The weird thing is that this article recap doesn't mention why we're still using it, or what purpose it serves today.
Hopefully it's not a scenario where people that don't know anything are trying to tear down something they don't understand because it annoys them
I see two excuses used for not being DST year round. 1) Economic. Something to do with electricity usage and we're supposed to use less of it... etc... however, studies have shown the effect is actually very negligible. 2) Children waiting at bus stops in the dark. Change school/business hours so that people don't leave in the dark.
Switching between DST and not is hugely unpopular and it wouldn't really cause any harm to remove it.
Based on 100 million people wasting 5 minutes changing clocks twice a year,
People still change clocks? How...peculiar. The computers and phones take care of themselves, and those are the only clocks I use these days....
My computers, my phone, and my bedside clock all change automatically... however... the living room clock, the microwave clock, the oven clock, the clocks in the cars, the office clock, my watches... none of them change automatically. However, I've learnt it's easier to just remember those clocks are an hour fast for four months than it is to go around and change them.
I... would like to point out that it should be possible to build embankments in a curved tunnel. Underground in a curved tunnel intended only to be run at speed you could angle the embankment of the rail on curves and the vehicle could take corners at higher speeds.
First of all you don't mean "embankments", which are raised earthworks in the open. You mean "banking" or "cant" (the latter is used in the UK railway world).
Secondly, I don't know about USA regulations, but in the UK the railway construction regulations do not permit more than a cetain modest amount of cant; AFAIR is is about 6 degrees. The reason is to avoid standing passengers falling over or merely being discomforted if the train has to stop at those places for signals or any other reason. You might think that rule is too cautious, but that is how it is and I have no doubt there are similar regulations concerning roads, although not for fairground rides.
It is another matter whether Musk considers himself above any such regulations - his denials (and those of his aides such as Rei here) that the Hyperloop is a railway (and hence he hopes he can duck established railway safety requirements even though the principle is the same) could be a clue. Perhaps he will claim that the Boring tunnels and Hyperloop are fairground rides.
He has two different proposed uses for the tunnels. One is Hyperloop, where a passenger is strapped into a seat. The other is sledges that cars park on and are pulled along through the tunnel at high speeds on. In both scenarios the passengers will be seated, and presumably, strapped down. Unlike the train, you won't get people getting up and heading for a quick poo. I think a different set of regulations could be employed for a different technology. The concerns for above ground trains wouldn't really apply to Hyperloop or a car on a Sledge.
Statistically, two of the most dangerous times of year come the week after each of the time changes as people's body-clocks don't match up with the time of day. There are an increase in accidents and deaths during this time.
I understand that there are concerns for children standing in the dark waiting for buses. Perhaps we need to make daylight savings time the standard time year round (or just make schools start an hour later and the suggested work day start an hour later).
Let's stop the charade and just set time to a static time year round.
Slashdot Mirror
The Count Dankula kerfuffle certainly shows what side the UK stands for. What a fucking waste of taxpayer money that was.
Indeed, if you're an F1 millionaire you can get away with Nazi themed sex parties with prostitutes dressed as concentration camp guards and have the newspapers silenced so they can't report on it (at least for a time). If you're a nobody and you post a video showing you pranking your girlfriend by teaching her cute dog to do a Nazi salute you get charged with a hate crime
Tackling homelessness and taking homeless people off the street improves location desirability, which increases people's desire to live and work there.
You are assuming that the new spending will actually be effective. That may or may not be true. Homelessness is a difficult problem to solve, and SF already has plenty of shelters and programs that don't work. More spending on homelessness will also pull more homeless people from other areas of the country, which may actually make the problem worse on the streets of San Francisco.
Regarding your first point. Yes, I'm assuming the spend the money wisely. Naturally there is a good chance that they won't. I'm being an optimist for now.
For your second point; homeless people don't tend to travel far from where they live. Often they lack the means to. A large percent suffer from mental disorders (which is why they're homeless in the first place) and many become addict to drugs or alcohol as a crutch. They're not going to leave their suppliers.
Most homeless people are not reading internet news either so won't know about San Francisco helping the homeless.
Steeling someone else's money and redistributing it has always failed. This won't work out. The real cause is these people are all drug addicts.
Actually, a great deal of them have mental disorders or psychological disorders which is why they're homeless in the first place and can't get a job. Many probably are drug addicts, some probably were drug addicts before being homeless, and some homelessness caused them to turn to drugs.
A large number of them though, their biggest crime is neither being wealthy enough, nor having family that were wealthy enough, to provide them adequate mental health care to allow them to lead normal lives. The mental issues also make them more susceptible to allow themselves to become hooked on drugs as a crutch. So yeah, you can hew and haw, and feel mighty superior in your comfy office and look down at the homeless and quote how we shouldn't help those dirty drug addicts, but that's really a dick attitude to take.
Yup, next time I see someone homeless in my area, instead of giving them $5. I'll take them to the bus station and buy them a ticket to San Fran.
Although you joke; New York has done just that. They've paid to have homeless people shipped elsewhere. Other than government intrusion though- homeless people don't tend to wander much- they're not going to go to SF unless someone does buy them a bus ticket.
In reality, it will probably have the opposite effect.
Tackling homelessness and taking homeless people off the street improves location desirability, which increases people's desire to live and work there. Besides do you really want the mega corporations and America's financial engine to leave California?
If they go to your red state they will bring urbanization with them. Urban areas tend to lean to the left and rural areas to the right. If large corporations left California, they would take leftist ideas with them. Your red state might turn blue.
It's a slippery slope. Next month, France wants him to appear, then Spain and Italy, then Angola and China.
So what? What if he ends up going to 20 different countries? He is operating a multinational company and he needs to respect them. If he is operating within a country and doesn't show respect to that ruling body, I hope he get's punished.
I hope when the UK next considers tax laws they do remember this. There's a lot of talk about how big companies like Facebook dodge paying taxes, I hope this event is considered when the UK next looks at how to change that.
to say nothing about inviting the asking of serious questions about the power of the state to censor, etc.
The UK already does censor. There are things called super injunctions that rich people and royals can use to silence the press when they do something embarrassing (and the newspaper's are not even allowed to admit they're being censored when it happens). There is also already censorship of certain types of consensual pron. UK regularly censors what is on children's shows. Some shows from America have to be reworded before being allowed to be shown in UK or get banned altogether. And... don't forget hate speech. You can be arrested just for saying something hateful about a minority.
In many ways Britain is a free and forwards-looking country- but in many other ways it is a censor-heavy contradiction of itself and what it purportedly believes in. I love the UK but it has some back-ass censorship laws in place. They're not going to block Facebook; but, don't act surprised if Britain censors anything. The government certainly reserves the right and there is no written constitution that forbids them.
He must have better things to do than fly around the world explaining things
Then the UK Parliament must keep whatever assumptions they have about Zuck without him having a chance to defend himself or his company, and legislate accordingly.
It seems to me that logic doesn't give a clear answer, as (1) cooperation may help your civilization to grow and exploit more faster; development is not a zero sum game; (2) any alien civilization should also expect that there is probably out there a more advanced alien civilization that it would need to compete with, and it might aid and use ally itself with smaller threats to defend itself against the larger threat. Ultimately, which approach is taken would probably be decided more by the context in which the alien society evolved.
When it comes to gambling the future of humanity- I tend to be risk adverse. I'd rather carry on with the status quo of no alien interference than gamble that they might help progress us (with the flip side being that they might wipe us off the face of the earth).
Yeah that little eugenics intuition "seems right" but guess what? it isn't.
The fact is, the thing that separates us most from animals, what makes us "more intelligent" than them, is the very fact that we started farming. Growing our own food. The perversion of farming living things came later and was a step back. Ebb and flow and all.
The increase in calories allowed us to have more for stoking our brains; but the fact is, we evolved from already smart creatures. Chimpanzees aren't farmers and they're already close to us in intelligence. I think that the ability for us to start farming is proof of intelligence already existing.
Maybe they've evolved past needing meat and became vegetarian! Then they'll come to Earth and never shut up about it.
All the more reason not to advertise our location to them.
Profile of intelligent aliens.
Based on what we know about animals on earth: the animals that are most intelligent are usually hunting animals; they may be omnivores, but by and large, most of the intelligent animals on earth do some hunting. (there are exceptions such as elephants of course). In general, to be a successful herbivore you need to be able to hide, or you need to be able to run fast. To be a successful predator or omnivore, a little intelligence can help.
Think humans, chimps, dolphins, pigs, dogs, crows, bears, octopuses, most of the more intelligent animals eat some meat when they can and hunt others.
So, any alien species that is intelligent probably evolved from omnivore or carnivore predecessors. From a personality standpoint that could mean many things, but it certainly would involve some view that some animals are beneath them and that life gives way for life.
We are more likely to encounter a species of bear-like predators than cow-like pacifists.
If we're not alone in the universe- I would like to know about our neighbours before they know about us.
Sending an unsolicited welcome beacon into the night could be catastrophic. If they're able to read it and respond they're probably more advanced than us. If they're more advanced than us they might not want to share the galaxy with another species who one day might evolve to challenge them or threaten them. There is no guarantee that any aliens out there would share our sentimentality to life. Or even want to meet alien species.
If their civilization has advanced far enough to be guided by Artificial Intelligence, certainly AI would decide the logical thing to do is remove a future threat before it becomes a threat. This isn't Star Trek, you can't guarantee that Mr. and Mrs. Greenface want to drink Romulan Ale with you and be best buds with you. Any species that survives to the space age needs some logic. Logic will tell you intelligent alien species could be a potential threat.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they don't seem to have a coherent message or platform beyond "We're not Republicans."
That's because the democrats are a very fractured party at the moment. Their moderates and their hardliners (and there is a lot more spread than previous years) have very different goals and ambitions.
In the current political climate with Trump being as unpopular and divisive as he is; "We're not Republicans" might be a powerful enough message by itself.
Neither party have a compelling message at the moment.
Republicans: "Make America White Again"
Democrats: "We're not with Stupid."
Neither is really a roadmap for peace and prosperity.
Obamacare was a good start but the GOP stopped the next steps from happening.
The main problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it's goal was "Health Insurance For Everyone". Health Insurance is the main problem why we have the inflationary costs in Medical Care in the first place.
Medical Providers set high prices because they assume patients have insurance and that insurance companies will try to negotiate down so set ridiculous prices. Insurance companies under pressure to cover as many doctors as possible, so pay ridiculous fees that some of the higher priced doctors charge. Other doctors raise prices to match and the whole thing spirals upwards with the consumers paying the cost.
There are two solutions.
1) A federal level health care system that regulates prices. (obviously many on the left want this but the right don't)
2) Some market based system that will keep the prices down. Currently, there are plenty of mechanisms that make the prices go up- but there is nothing in place to encourage prices to go down. There is no reason for Doctor B to charge less than Doctor A. Insurance companies don't care- they just pass on the cost to the consumer. Doctors certainly don't want to get less for the same procedure than their peers.
Ultimately, the only way a consumer will go to a lower priced doctor (an thus apply pressure for doctors to keep costs down) would be if a consumer pays a percent of each visit themselves up front (not just a copay) and
a) Knows how much something is going to cost before going.
b) Has some method of comparing the difference in prices.
Ultimately, I think a national health care system would be the best solution- but perhaps a compromise that both sides of spectrum could agree on because it would cost individuals and the state less would be a system I call McWeanyCare:
Where costs are given up front and are easily comparable (perhaps average charge to customers for last 12 months displayed outside a doctor's office much like a food grade is given - or an online database).
Instead of insurance companies for all health care- people are allowed (and encouraged) to have a Health Savings Account for non emergency care that is not taxed. Insurance should be for catastrophic coverage only. Drugs should be covered under price gouging rules (companies not allowed to randomly mark up drugs 500% for example without a court order).
For cases of poverty the government would have to help (they already do so no change here) - not everyone can afford a HSA, perhaps the government provide the first $x (probably cheaper than what the state pays today with existing programs once health costs go down).
Universal Insurance coverage as suggested by the Affordable Care Act is NOT the Answer- it is the cause of the problem in the first place. Insurance companies are the reason we pay so much now. They feed the inflationary cycle (that and non-clear doctor pricing).
Extra-solar, possibly artificial object passes through solar system. Trump declares formation of Space Marines. Coincidence?
Get the tinfoil hats on, boys, the invasion is on the way!
Meh! He'd demand that the aliens build a wall around our solar system at their expense.
It might have been alien, but almost certainly wasn't.
OK... it does now, but it didn't when I posted my comment. :)
Article Paywalled and the paragraph at top didn't even say which two cities are getting the Amazon HQ. You would have thought they would of included that important information.
I advise all my children not to eat anything that comes out of the exhaust pipe of a car.
Indeed winter time is when noon means "Sun at highest peak".
However, most people who want to eliminate time changes are asking for year-round DST. That's because DST is already more than 6 months of the year and business opening and closing is more based on DST than it is "winter time". Yes, that is effectively moving "a time zone to the East" but unfortunately businesses all start an hour earlier than they historically did. Who here starts work at "9am"? When did your office last start at 9am? 8am has become the standard- DST is probably to blame for that. We've already adjusted all our clocks to be "one time zone to the East," at least in the US, because of DST. It would be an easier transition to go to DST being the standard than it would be to go back to winter time.
If we go back to Winter Time businesses won't start closing at 4 by standard, they will stay at 5 and people want that extra hour of sun in the evening. It's easier to change time zone than it is to change ingrained standard work-hours.
Since it's mostly automated it's weird that people would be so upset....but sure, if it actually serves no purpose anymore then get rid of it.
The weird thing is that this article recap doesn't mention why we're still using it, or what purpose it serves today.
Hopefully it's not a scenario where people that don't know anything are trying to tear down something they don't understand because it annoys them
I see two excuses used for not being DST year round.
1) Economic. Something to do with electricity usage and we're supposed to use less of it... etc... however, studies have shown the effect is actually very negligible.
2) Children waiting at bus stops in the dark. Change school/business hours so that people don't leave in the dark.
Switching between DST and not is hugely unpopular and it wouldn't really cause any harm to remove it.
People still change clocks? How...peculiar. The computers and phones take care of themselves, and those are the only clocks I use these days....
My computers, my phone, and my bedside clock all change automatically... however... the living room clock, the microwave clock, the oven clock, the clocks in the cars, the office clock, my watches... none of them change automatically. However, I've learnt it's easier to just remember those clocks are an hour fast for four months than it is to go around and change them.
I ... would like to point out that it should be possible to build embankments in a curved tunnel. Underground in a curved tunnel intended only to be run at speed you could angle the embankment of the rail on curves and the vehicle could take corners at higher speeds.
First of all you don't mean "embankments", which are raised earthworks in the open. You mean "banking" or "cant" (the latter is used in the UK railway world).
Secondly, I don't know about USA regulations, but in the UK the railway construction regulations do not permit more than a cetain modest amount of cant; AFAIR is is about 6 degrees. The reason is to avoid standing passengers falling over or merely being discomforted if the train has to stop at those places for signals or any other reason. You might think that rule is too cautious, but that is how it is and I have no doubt there are similar regulations concerning roads, although not for fairground rides.
It is another matter whether Musk considers himself above any such regulations - his denials (and those of his aides such as Rei here) that the Hyperloop is a railway (and hence he hopes he can duck established railway safety requirements even though the principle is the same) could be a clue. Perhaps he will claim that the Boring tunnels and Hyperloop are fairground rides.
He has two different proposed uses for the tunnels. One is Hyperloop, where a passenger is strapped into a seat. The other is sledges that cars park on and are pulled along through the tunnel at high speeds on. In both scenarios the passengers will be seated, and presumably, strapped down. Unlike the train, you won't get people getting up and heading for a quick poo. I think a different set of regulations could be employed for a different technology. The concerns for above ground trains wouldn't really apply to Hyperloop or a car on a Sledge.
Statistically, two of the most dangerous times of year come the week after each of the time changes as people's body-clocks don't match up with the time of day. There are an increase in accidents and deaths during this time.
I understand that there are concerns for children standing in the dark waiting for buses. Perhaps we need to make daylight savings time the standard time year round (or just make schools start an hour later and the suggested work day start an hour later).
Let's stop the charade and just set time to a static time year round.