141–150 of 320 posts
I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LA has an order of magnitude more population than is required for functioning public transit. But you're right they don't have the density. The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density . Parking lots, parking spaces, and extra lanes all conspire to push humans and human spaces further apart. This then makes walking less feasible, cars more required, and more space required to accommodate those cars in a f…
> almost 20,000 people into a square mile That's less than 1/3 the density of Manhattan and about on par with SF.
>where just about nothing is higher than 3 stories
The point is that cars destroy density regardless of what your building height limits are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Blu…
LA has an order of magnitude more population than is required for functioning public transit. But you're right they don't have the density. The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density . Parking lots, parking spaces, and extra lanes all conspire to push humans and human spaces further apart. This then makes walking less feasible, cars more required, and more space required to accommodate those cars in a f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is "Linux on the Desktop next year" still a thing? I'm really sick of this trope. I have been using Linux on the desktop almost exclusively for 15 years. Yes, I still have to fix weird issues on occasion . . . about as frequently as I have to fix weird issues on my wife's Windows machine.
You have, but general adoption of Linux-lineage OS's is focused in the mobile tech space. Desktop adoption is still exceedingly low. Statscounter shows Linux installs about on par with ChromeOS installs [ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide ]. Both are beaten out by the "Unknown" category; there are literally more people running we-can't-tell-what OS than a Linux-derivative OS. I think these…
Or I can use GIMP for free.
You are correct that Linux on the desktop is not mainstream and that is largely down to network effects, but I don't understand the next logical step in the argument. How does that make Linux on the desktop "not ready" or "incomplete?" In my opinion (and I recognise that this is just an opinion), Linux has been a superior experience to Windows for a long time. All common problems have several robust solutions. Uncommon problems often also have a good solution (which isn't guaranteed on Windows either, at least not without spending a lot of money). The idea that Linux isn't "Desktop Ready" is a tired trope. Just because people don't, doesn't mean they can't. Linux doesn't have a marketing department (and I wouldn't want it to).
I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…
I have always been in the camp that real dystopian future is tens of millions trapped in large cities instead of being free to live and travel where they want. I can never willingly place myself back into a large city.
there is no reason the concept of public transportation does not include self driving vehicles in many sizes. already this day we run separate transit vehicles for those with handicaps which make regular bus and train travel difficult or impossible to access. So why not smaller cars that can serve any one in need at any time regardless of where they are located.
one of the most common traits in any recently freed or booming economy is the personal vehicle and for good reason. it offers the means to travel where and when you want to not be trapped in one location.
I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…
Cars are extremely useful and are not going anywhere. They have problems like carbon emissions and being extremely dangerous but those will have to be solved while preserving the fundamental utility of a cars: They are individual vehicles that can go nearly anywhere and carry considerable cargo.
I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…
As someone who commutes primarily via bicycle, I've always been mystified by colleagues and friends who choose to drive to work in the densely populated northeastern city while cycling through center city is faster, more fun, better for your health, etc. There are obvious times when driving a car will make more sense, e.g. transporting delicate flowers, but for the average commuter it breaks down to the fact that the car is just somewhat sacred in our society. It is an important aspect of the American identity and our vision of success in this country, and so here we are, innovating around cars with technologies like self-driving rather than looking forwards to new potential paradigms of transportation.
This is just in regards to the average commuter, I'm sure that self-driving does have its place in like, moving 40' containers in low-density areas.
Cars travel at a high rate of speed and a 1% error can easily be fatal. Either by hitting a pedestrian or someone on a bike, or by the car failing to acknowledge something and crashing itself head on into something.
Because cars travel in a highly dynamic environment this 1% error and the fatality risk associated with it is very high, so you need to have something that is 99.99999% safe which is extremely challenging because of the dynamic environment.
Meanwhile, if you look at automated train and rail systems. Because the environment is 99% controlled and less complex a 1% error is actually much smaller, because the environment is so controlled.
The high rate of speed, coupled with fatality risk, coupled with dynamic environments, is why this is such a challenging problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LA has an order of magnitude more population than is required for functioning public transit. But you're right they don't have the density. The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density . Parking lots, parking spaces, and extra lanes all conspire to push humans and human spaces further apart. This then makes walking less feasible, cars more required, and more space required to accommodate those cars in a f…
The car did not directly kill density, it enabled people to choose less density.
I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…
The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Blu…
> The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density.
Lot's of relatively low density places in Europe, Japan, etc. have very functional public mass transit. It's not universal, but there are good examples.
If you start with the assumption that approximately everyone has a car, you can choose build cities in ways that only support that...