Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called a cart, see above.
No, you can't take a grocery cart on a bus.
Yes you can. I see it in SF, all the time.
New Cities
441–450 of 710 posts
Re: New Cities
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd still be using the firearm, though. You wouldn't have shot it, but you used the threat of shooting it.
Would saying you'd go home, and come back with your firearm still be using it? What about threatening to go buy a firearm? How about saying you once went to a shooting range and shot a firearm? Telling a story about going hunting with a gun? Talking about an episode of "How it's Made" where they made a firearm?
Your comment is ridiculous to the point of lunacy. And it's far too far removed from the subject matter for you to try to claim some argument ad absurdum crap. The fact of the matter is that, in that situation, you still had the gun pointed in someone's face.
Re: New Cities
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course cars have a place too. Having two smallish children, cars are a great way for my family to get around for many things. But it's nice when they are one option among many, and not set on a pedestal as the only one. For instance, when we lived in Padova: we'd ride bikes around the neighborhood when the weather was good. I'd walk to get groceries. My wife and I often rode bikes downtown for 'date night'. We'd t…
Changing the way cars function inside the city is only part of what would need to change. Near me things just aren't laid out well for pedestrians. It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). Biking should be much shorter, though I can't say I've ever tried. We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large store…
> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores.
This would be highly inefficient and result in higher costs of goods and reduced options for consumers.
Re: New Cities
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There are precious few places where you literally can't walk or bike." Where you literally can't? No. But where current infrastructure has made it hugely impractical to? I'd say that's most of the country, especially suburbia. "I would even argue that it isn't all that important." If you're ok with driving everywhere, then no, you wouldn't think it was. Not everyone wants to do that, though. And making things friend…
The "it" which I'm saying "isn't all that important" is throughput. Not biking/walking, traffic throughput. I don't understand why everyone is coming out of the woodwork here to criticize my car-centric viewpoint and tell me how great biking or walking is. I guess it's Yet Another Example of how people on the internet can't handle the concept of disagreeing with a single point.
No, it's because people with a car centric viewpoint push solutions that prioritize the car to the exclusion of other things, making cars a requirement.
Re: New Cities
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. That comes with it's own trade offs in planning an efficient city. Markets are a great way of finding 'the best' solution to problems like this, but they aren't allowed to function any more in most cities in the US because of the amount of rules and regulations about what can be bu…
> Markets are a great way of finding 'the best' solution to problems like this ...assuming perfect knowledge and the absence of externalities, either of cost or benefit, since (assuming perfect knowledge of costs and benefits) markets optimize the net utility of the direct participants in each exchange, but not net social utility (because externalities are ignored.)
If externalities are present, there is no general solution to the problem of optimizing either individual net utility or social net utility. Markets don't do it perfectly, but no other solution does any better, and in fact the most common alternative, government regulation, does worse on average.
Re: New Cities
#446Does anyone else think Y Combinator projects have been getting rather grandiose of late?
Re: New Cities
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what was said at all. Nowhere do they say they don't keep food at home.
Eating what food you buy right away precludes storing food at home.
Eat some food. Not all of it.
I honestly don't see how you think this is a reasonable straw man you've constructed.
Re: New Cities
#448This has been tried before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
Re: New Cities
#449Ycombinator is the real Plus Ultra society from Tomorrowland
Re: New Cities
#450"How can we make rules and regulations that are comprehensive while also being easily understandable? Can we fit all rules for the city in 100 pages of text?" If you give arbitrary power to those who enforce the rules, sure, they can fit in 100 pages. If you don't value predictability and consistency of enforcement, sure, they can fit in 100 pages. In fact, the rules can fit onto one page. The Ten Commandments are pr…
It could be 100 pages if you start from scratch with a permissive development plan... (from a city standpoint).
Issues such as criminal law, state and federal taxation, etc are outside the purvue of this discussion (and of the 100 page limit) since YCR is speaking of a _city_, likely within the US.
Put a draft up on github and see it fork away!