Assuming that everyone else shares your preferences is what's not grounded in reality.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm noting that car share services already exist, and comprise only a very tiny share of all trips. That's not a matter of me projecting my preferences - it's observing the actual market as it exists. I just don't using autonomous vehicles would make depending on a car share service any more appealing [in relation to owning an autonomous car] than current car sharing services are [in relation to owning a human-driven car].
Anecdotal, but my stepson would LOVE autonomous vehicle ridesharing. Especially if it meant he never had to buy a car and never, ever had to learn to drive it.
Ownership is one issue, and autonomy is a separate one. Today, you can own a non-autonomous car, or you can use a car share to use a non-autonomous car. In the future, assuming autonomous cars don't end up being so much vaporware, those same options ill exist with autonomous cars. I don't see, nor has anyone proposed, a mechanism to explain why introducing self-driving capability to cars (both private and shared) will shift the existing balance in preference from ownership to sharing.
Americans are forced into the suburbs if they value the safety of their family, and so their kids don't step outside to see a wino passed out on their doorstep, or get impaled on a syringe from some crackheads the night before.
Sounds like you've only ever live in the shittiest neighborhoods in shittiest cities. Most neighborhoods in most cities are not even vaguely like you describe.
No transportation system would ever survive without dipping into the pockets of all the surrounding areas that it doesn't serve.
FTFY. Transportation is something that facilitates economic activity, but that produces little to no revenue on its own. This is true across ALL modes, not just transit.
Boston has a great transit system. DC's is pretty good, when it's running. Denver, Portland and Salt Lake City (of all places) punch above their class in transit. The Twin Cities has a system that is great for many trips, though some trips are pretty much as you describe.
But the overall point is correct: we do need to start investing a lot more in transit.
Right you are! I've got a not-quite luxury car that I bought new, and my monthly payment is less than $500/month. $500 for a lease is ridiculous - $200 is doable for a small car, and $350 will get you something pretty good.
While that's true, it is also true that earning money requires giving up some degree of freedom of movement and association.
That said, the idea that car sharing is going to ever be preferred over personal ownership is not grounded in reality. We already have car sharing services like Hourcar - and it's a niche market. Automating the driving only adds a small amount of convenience, and that comes at a higher price. There's no reason at all to expect that it's nearly enough to alter the market to any notable degree.
And then it only makes sense only if all vehicles on the road are automated. A mix of human and automated drivers is likely to increase both congestion and accidents.
It is called the 'fast' lane because you are supposed to be there if you are maintaining a constant speed equivalent to the flow of traffic.
It may be called the 'fast' lane, but it is not. It is the passing lane. You should only be using it if you are passing another vehicle. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as heavy traffic or an upcoming (ie, less than a mile ahead) left exit. But as long as traffic is flowing normally, it should be used for passing and NOT cruising.
If you're not going faster than the people in the right (inside) lane, you need to move your ass over ASAP to let past people who want to pass. That's common courtesy, and ought to be the law in places it isn't.
They also drive up the cost of housing and traffic congestion, both of which are significant downward pressures on the standard of living for people who were there already.
We insist that only doctors can prescribe medication, although there are many, many countries that don't require doctor approval and do very well with that.
But our system prevents people from prescribing highly addictive painkillers willy-nilly!
The main issue I have with those requirements is the requirement to learn the "native language". The US doesn't have one. Some states have official languages, but even then, you've got more than one - New Mexico declared both English and Spanish official languages. Hawaiian is an official language in Hawaii, French in Louisiana, and Alaska has 21 official languages (most of which are actual native languages).
I also think that the language issue takes care of itself after the first generation. You're not going to find many second generation immigrants from anywhere who still don't know the main language where they move. The inconvenience of not knowing it far outweighs the difficulty of learning it, so they learn it.
However hybridized social-welfare systems are both plausible but also effective. Europe, Australia, Candada, etc all have similar histories of strong investments in capitalism, but have also adopted degrees of welfare to ensure people dont fall completely out of the net with health and basic living standards.
Indeed, the best of both worlds. It's not perfect - but what is?
Not at all. Happens all the time when an employer is forced to garnish someone's wages. Removing a post is not an unreasonable burden on Yelp.
The employer garnishing wages is not taking any of his money, it's the employee's wages.
The point is that the employer is required by a court order to take the employee's wages and remit them to the employee's creditor. The employer is a third party to the debt between the employee and creditor. It's really not at all different than ordering a defaming post be taken down - if anything, it's less of a burden.
What kind of a cunt thinks that its "weasel words" to tell people how to fix something they see as a problem?
The part where you act like there's no discretion in the enforcement of law, and that the law requires a policy that was just enacted this year (before which, multiple administrations exercised discretion to NOT create a humanitarian crisis), and that the onus is on the people who object to the policy rather than the people who enacted it.
The law does not require that children be separated from their parents, nor does it require every case be prosecuted. There's no need to change the law to end that policy.
Was it really just that he feared the [other political party] using it in a "think of the children" line of attack?
Yeah, that's why pretty much everyone in both the House and the Senate voted for it. That, and/or to make it look like they were doing something about a very difficult to deal with problem.
And hydrogen isn't even a fuel source - it's a fuel store. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen itself provides when used.
By that definition, nothing is a fuel source and everything is merely a fuel store. It's certainly more scientifically accurate, but I'm not sure that it's any more useful in everyday conversation.
Are you being willfully obtuse? We're talking about the amount of energy that must be put into production/extraction BY HUMANS. The energy needed for the universe, our sun, and our planet to create oil, coal, natural gas, wind, water, solar radiation, and nuclear isotopes that exist and are available to humans now is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Pedantry is great and all, but in this case, it is detrimental to understanding the point being made.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that everyone else shares your preferences is what's not grounded in reality.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm noting that car share services already exist, and comprise only a very tiny share of all trips. That's not a matter of me projecting my preferences - it's observing the actual market as it exists. I just don't using autonomous vehicles would make depending on a car share service any more appealing [in relation to owning an autonomous car] than current car sharing services are [in relation to owning a human-driven car].
Anecdotal, but my stepson would LOVE autonomous vehicle ridesharing. Especially if it meant he never had to buy a car and never, ever had to learn to drive it.
Ownership is one issue, and autonomy is a separate one. Today, you can own a non-autonomous car, or you can use a car share to use a non-autonomous car. In the future, assuming autonomous cars don't end up being so much vaporware, those same options ill exist with autonomous cars. I don't see, nor has anyone proposed, a mechanism to explain why introducing self-driving capability to cars (both private and shared) will shift the existing balance in preference from ownership to sharing.
Americans are forced into the suburbs if they value the safety of their family, and so their kids don't step outside to see a wino passed out on their doorstep, or get impaled on a syringe from some crackheads the night before.
Sounds like you've only ever live in the shittiest neighborhoods in shittiest cities. Most neighborhoods in most cities are not even vaguely like you describe.
No transportation system would ever survive without dipping into the pockets of all the surrounding areas that it doesn't serve.
FTFY. Transportation is something that facilitates economic activity, but that produces little to no revenue on its own. This is true across ALL modes, not just transit.
Boston has a great transit system. DC's is pretty good, when it's running. Denver, Portland and Salt Lake City (of all places) punch above their class in transit. The Twin Cities has a system that is great for many trips, though some trips are pretty much as you describe.
But the overall point is correct: we do need to start investing a lot more in transit.
Right you are! I've got a not-quite luxury car that I bought new, and my monthly payment is less than $500/month. $500 for a lease is ridiculous - $200 is doable for a small car, and $350 will get you something pretty good.
While that's true, it is also true that earning money requires giving up some degree of freedom of movement and association.
That said, the idea that car sharing is going to ever be preferred over personal ownership is not grounded in reality. We already have car sharing services like Hourcar - and it's a niche market. Automating the driving only adds a small amount of convenience, and that comes at a higher price. There's no reason at all to expect that it's nearly enough to alter the market to any notable degree.
Parking could be a huge time sink depending on your job and home locations
Just wait until you see how much of a time sink the queue to be dropped off/picked up ends up being.
And then it only makes sense only if all vehicles on the road are automated. A mix of human and automated drivers is likely to increase both congestion and accidents.
Tornados don't require mass evacuations.
It is called the 'fast' lane because you are supposed to be there if you are maintaining a constant speed equivalent to the flow of traffic.
It may be called the 'fast' lane, but it is not. It is the passing lane. You should only be using it if you are passing another vehicle. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as heavy traffic or an upcoming (ie, less than a mile ahead) left exit. But as long as traffic is flowing normally, it should be used for passing and NOT cruising.
If you're not going faster than the people in the right (inside) lane, you need to move your ass over ASAP to let past people who want to pass. That's common courtesy, and ought to be the law in places it isn't.
Fixed it for you.
Social Democracy looks pretty good in comparison, IMHO.
They also drive up the cost of housing and traffic congestion, both of which are significant downward pressures on the standard of living for people who were there already.
It can be two things.
We insist that only doctors can prescribe medication, although there are many, many countries that don't require doctor approval and do very well with that.
But our system prevents people from prescribing highly addictive painkillers willy-nilly!
What's that you say?
True, but it's also pretty close to the amount of actual work you get out of the average 40 hour full-time worker.
The main issue I have with those requirements is the requirement to learn the "native language". The US doesn't have one. Some states have official languages, but even then, you've got more than one - New Mexico declared both English and Spanish official languages. Hawaiian is an official language in Hawaii, French in Louisiana, and Alaska has 21 official languages (most of which are actual native languages).
I also think that the language issue takes care of itself after the first generation. You're not going to find many second generation immigrants from anywhere who still don't know the main language where they move. The inconvenience of not knowing it far outweighs the difficulty of learning it, so they learn it.
However hybridized social-welfare systems are both plausible but also effective. Europe, Australia, Candada, etc all have similar histories of strong investments in capitalism, but have also adopted degrees of welfare to ensure people dont fall completely out of the net with health and basic living standards.
Indeed, the best of both worlds. It's not perfect - but what is?
You should probably educate yourself on the concept of a natural monopoly. Regulation is the response, not the cause.
The employer garnishing wages is not taking any of his money, it's the employee's wages.
The point is that the employer is required by a court order to take the employee's wages and remit them to the employee's creditor. The employer is a third party to the debt between the employee and creditor. It's really not at all different than ordering a defaming post be taken down - if anything, it's less of a burden.
What kind of a cunt thinks that its "weasel words" to tell people how to fix something they see as a problem?
The part where you act like there's no discretion in the enforcement of law, and that the law requires a policy that was just enacted this year (before which, multiple administrations exercised discretion to NOT create a humanitarian crisis), and that the onus is on the people who object to the policy rather than the people who enacted it.
The law does not require that children be separated from their parents, nor does it require every case be prosecuted. There's no need to change the law to end that policy.
What good argument is there FOR this policy?
Was it really just that he feared the [other political party] using it in a "think of the children" line of attack?
Yeah, that's why pretty much everyone in both the House and the Senate voted for it. That, and/or to make it look like they were doing something about a very difficult to deal with problem.
And hydrogen isn't even a fuel source - it's a fuel store. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen itself provides when used.
By that definition, nothing is a fuel source and everything is merely a fuel store. It's certainly more scientifically accurate, but I'm not sure that it's any more useful in everyday conversation.
Are you being willfully obtuse? We're talking about the amount of energy that must be put into production/extraction BY HUMANS. The energy needed for the universe, our sun, and our planet to create oil, coal, natural gas, wind, water, solar radiation, and nuclear isotopes that exist and are available to humans now is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Pedantry is great and all, but in this case, it is detrimental to understanding the point being made.
Or better yet, by miles driven. And really, you should control for the traffic, road, and weather conditions in which the SDCs are operating.
I'm not sure why this is marked as a troll. It's pretty spot on, and not passing judgment one way or the other.