61–70 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the whole point of a self-driving car is that the passenger can pay no attention to the road. Else it's not self-driving.
Of course, but if you take some random people and put them on the road in a self driving car, most will pay attention out of nervousness/habit.
I think sprawl will increase when self driving cars become a thing. Long commutes will be a lot more tolerable, parking a non issue, and the cost of owning a car could be reduced with self driving taxis or busses.
I think you overestimate the ability of self driving cars to make a long commute tolerable, since driving in a car for an hour (or more) each way is no fun even if someone else is driving. Getting quality work done is tough if you're at all prone to motion sickness while working on a computer in a moving vehicle, and it's hard to get in quality sleep even in a fully reclining seat. My wife and I commuted together (45…
If I could get a self-driving car that worked competently, it would certainly make my commute so much more tolerable.
Where does the idea that you should spend 30% of your money on rent come from? I see it everywhere. Not that I'm questioning it in general, but does it ever change?
I support ending sprawl, but there are factors that drive people to it. (Perceived or real) * Quality of education for their children. * Privacy (space/sound insulation) * Nature (if you move far enough out, then wonder why wildlife 'invades') * Investment (housing shouldn't be, but it is; also rent is too high)
Sprawl is a reaction to land rents ( ala Ricardo ). It's really only bad in that it facilitates and encourages commuting. It could be at least partially addressed through the tax system - carbon taxes and land rents taxes combined would probably be enough.
But they do allow to lower other taxes, and shift incentives away from NIMBYism that is currently blocking denser developments.
Where does the idea that you should spend 30% of your money on rent come from? I see it everywhere. Not that I'm questioning it in general, but does it ever change?
Ten to fifteen percent is vastly better. It's doable but it's not that easy. You need a middling-good job in flyover country. That's the part that's not that easy - it's harder to justify a gig in flyover country by sheer ability. Companies on the downward slide towards Schumpeterian irrelevance just don't care and so don't bother them with the facts... IMO, this was what my ( Silent Generation ) parents used as a he…
The main thing I am looking for is privacy. I find that if I have access to private property big enough to take a short walk in nature, maybe a 10-20 minute walk, then my physical and cognitive health improves by huge amounts. When I lived in urban Boston, and I would go for long runs on the street and through parks, or I would use a rental car to go out to the Middlesex Fells for geocaching, it was like a poor basta…
I'm curious how certain things fit into city living. Examples: Rockband the Game. You can't play that game in an apartment in the city without being a total dick to your neighbors. You can play it in a house in suburbia. Arguably the same is true for the home version of Dance Dance Revolution Another is room scale VR which pretty seems to demand owning a large enough place to have your VR room. Maybe some people can…
What? Why? Just put on good soundproofing in your apartment. If you're living in the center, there's a good chance you already have old-school half a meter brick walls anyway.
I support ending sprawl, but there are factors that drive people to it. (Perceived or real) * Quality of education for their children. * Privacy (space/sound insulation) * Nature (if you move far enough out, then wonder why wildlife 'invades') * Investment (housing shouldn't be, but it is; also rent is too high)
It's an american thing, without any objective reason. As a teenager, I had to commute for an hour (one way) from a distant neighbourhood to a good high school in the city center.
The main thing I am looking for is privacy. I find that if I have access to private property big enough to take a short walk in nature, maybe a 10-20 minute walk, then my physical and cognitive health improves by huge amounts. When I lived in urban Boston, and I would go for long runs on the street and through parks, or I would use a rental car to go out to the Middlesex Fells for geocaching, it was like a poor basta…
Wouldn't it be great for you if everyone else moved to dense cities, so there'd be more nature left for you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be great for you if everyone else moved to dense cities, so there'd be more nature left for you?
Ah, but then you can't have a job that lets you live near nature. Even most remote jobs (which have lots of other downsides, like stalling out career progress) require decent proximity to a major city or airport, and high-speed internet.
Think of taking all the Bay Area, putting all the economic activity and people who want city living into a small area with 40 story towers, and the rest will be much more pleasant---with relatively easy commuting into the small core for the voluntary country bumpkins.