241–244 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has little to do with advertising though. When you drive, you still see billboards with advertising. When you take public transit, the buses and the trains can have ads inside and outside.
Whenever AR glasses with ad-blockers are available, I will be an early adopter.
I've owned multiple Jeeps in the past.
Never again.
You wouldn't run an ad blocker on your car... > But the problem could presage a more significant issue for future drivers. Last year, Ford filed a patent for an in-car advertising system that would use the car’s speakers and display screen to serve ads to drivers and passengers. That system would also use the car’s GPS tracker to serve ads relevant to the driver’s route. This is some Black Mirror type dystopian visio…
You can, just not at a price that you would want to pay. ('tis the beauty of supply and demand)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is considerably easier for a country that would be equivalent to one of the smallest U.S. states to abandon their dependence on cars than it is a country 237 times larger. I'm not sure it is. Have you visited the Netherlands? You don't walk or ride a push bike between cities there, any more than you do in the USA. Bicycles are the predominant form of transport because of how they design their suburbs. A car in s…
> Doesn't the word "lonely" give you a hint on why this is irrelevant? You aren't going to ride a push bike to pick up fuel for your tractor in the Netherlands either. The relevance isn't that it is lonely, the relevance is that it is not unique west of the Mississippi. But I welcome you to point me to a country the size of the United States that has solved this problem. I think you'll find they come in two varieties…
Russia, China, India. Almost everywhere because to pull the US pattern of suburbia off you needed two things: to build the suburbs in the era of the car, and be rich enough to afford the cars. The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand met those two criteria. Almost no one else did.
The size of the place had nothing to do with it. New Zealand isn't that big. As I said the Netherlands for a while decided to emulate what USA pattern. They had the money, and they started to build the freeways to enable the expansion. They decided against it. Whatever caused them to do that, it wasn't size. It was probably because the preferred the denser style of living.
Most people do, because it and easier and cheaper lifestyle. Maintaining all the larger house block, the long travel times, the increased freight - it all takes effort and money. Perversely, you get more exercise in these denser cities because you walk / cycle everywhere.