541–550 of 910 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh aha thanks for pointing that out. Now that you mention it that does seem obvious. I definitely didn't catch that from the first use though. There should be a better word to capture both those meanings that doesn't confuse my poor regex sensibilities like that. :|
My regex sensitivities only warned me about the persecution of veggggggggns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people, who do not want to pay for the leftist dreamworld Except that time and time again, it turns out that the "leftist dreamworld" is actually cheaper. Providing subsidized housing for poor people costs less in the long run than dealing with homelessness. Providing nationalized or strictly regulated healthcare costs less than fully privatized systems where healthcare operators do as they please. Facilitating act…
The thing is, it is never enough and ends up usually in a disaster and people lose their life, because their opinions get in the way. Subsidy kills innovation. There is no incentive anymore to make things better. You always must know someone, you can bribe, so that something gets done. I get it, hackernews is flooded with well meaning people making way more money than normal people do. They see, how 'unfair' the worl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The far-right Berlin government is currently doing its darnedest to build the most expensive highway in all of Germany, that nobody actually wants, through a cultural area. Probably because their friend owns the highway construction company.
I don't see how any government, regardless of location, that spends large sums of taxpayer money on a construction project could ever be considered to be "right wing" in any way, let alone "far-right". Such behaviour fundamentally contradicts even the mildest of right-of-centre ideologies. An actual right-of-centre government would never even consider starting such a project. If a right-of-centre government happened…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. This is something Texas is having to come to terms with right now. Cars and roads only scale so much before you physically can't move more people fast enough even with more roads and more lanes. Rail scales way better. So Texas is pushing a high speed rail line that will allow people to commute 30-90min into a city from locations that currently are 1.5-3 hours away. And at that allow those people to commute to ci…
Is Texas "coming to terms" with it, though? Cars don't scale infinitely but are also way more flexible than rail lines could ever be. If your goal is to have everyone work in downtown Dallas then yes, they suck. But you can just build offices and manufacturing facilities all around the state instead, avoiding the creation of single bottlenecks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
80% of homelessness in the USA is transitional, i.e. someone lost a job or had an injury and needs time to get back on their feet.
Transient: a person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time. I don't think most people mean someone is only temporarily homeless when they call them transients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't having a car do this too?
Anecdotally, I frequently take day (or weekend) trips to other European cities by rail. It is usually quicker than the roads but also crucially you can be productive on the train. If I had to drive my car there then I probably wouldn't bother.
And you can only work in it, because no one wants to use this monster on a daily basis, so its empty and you dont fight for space. :)
Is it a good practice when you give out blanket subsidies? Does targeted subsidies work better and are cost effective? I am researching this topic applied to taxation field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Road wear scales with the fourth power of weight over the axle so, even with personal cars getting heavier, I’m not sure that moving people from cars to trains makes much of a difference – I think most wear typically comes from heavy vehicles or weathering – so it mightn’t make much difference to repair costs. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other advantages. Eg reducing parking spaces (as a sibling points out) to inc…
> time on a train can be better spent than time in a car because one doesn’t need to pay as much attention, which could be a small improvement to many people’s lives. This is not really true on busy trains. I've commuted both on trains and in cars, and when comparing transportation methods near the saturation point, cars win when it comes to personal comfort. A traffic jam is no fun, but you can still sit, aren't jos…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funding road repairs, construction, and expansion from general tax revenues is similarly subsidizing a different mode of transit, and it's likely a much higher value than the 3b€ you mention (and likely more than overall railway sector subsidizing, tho I'm not familiar with Germany's budget). Also recognizing that other positive externalities exist, but pricing them at $0, seems silly.
Not to mention subsidised parking spaces. Free and even paid street parking is highly subsidised by the city and by other tax payers. There's also the environmental cost of not having that land be a park or nature and instead have it contribute to being an urban heat island with all its asphalt.
Something like this is quite hilarious if you think about it.
https://www.alamy.com/parking-in-the-courtyard-of-high-rise-...
It reminds me of grazing cows having 80 times as much space as people in some parts of my country.