Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waymo in Portland

waymo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 607 posts

Re: Waymo in Portland

#581

Post by oklahomasports »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #516
cameldrv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The European mind does not comprehend how big and sparsely populated the American West is. You can't even pitch a tent in most places in the Alps, and why would you, when you just stop at a hut that has a staff and you can get fed and sleep in bunks with 20 other people? Meanwhile I can drive to numerous places where there isn't a structure or even another person in a 20km radius. No one is going to run a train to a…

You're describing places that have few people and hence few car trips. Most car trips, even in the US, take place in densely populated areas. The point of public transit isn't to handle 100% of all trips. It's to handle the most common trips in a more efficient and scalable way.

Saying most car trips take place in densely populated areas in the US is a lie

Re: Waymo in Portland

#583

Post by charcircuit »

senordevnyc wrote: post #558
charcircuit wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in a society where you don't have to worry about people stealing, being violent, doing drugs, scamming you, breaking into your car, etc sounds like the opposite of a dystopia.

Yeah, but you mentioned none of those things, instead you suggested a 10+ year sentence is reasonable for people who are too “noisy”. I assume you’d recommend slow torture and then the murder of their entire family if someone dared to actually “do drugs”. Fortunately, your views are wildly extreme and unconstitutional. Regardless, I hope you find some empathy and some peace out there.

Having actual consequences and holding people is all related to solving these problems.

In regards to doing drugs I'd prefer only the death penalty or other equivalent permanent punishment for those have used or distributed them and not the whole family. When we have a war on drugs, murder is not the correct word to use. Drug usage is an extremely fast spreading social virus that needs to be immediately and swiftly snuffed out.

>your views are wildly extreme and unconstitutional

If having properly waited consequences to people's negative actions is considered unconstitutional than I believe the constitution should be changed as it is allowing society to be held back. I see nothing fortunate about allowing people to not have to be responsible for their actions that have negatively impacted society. I hope you too find some empathy.

Re: Waymo in Portland

#584

Post by malfist »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #538
malfist wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cost of providing a bus exceeds the cost of operating a car in many cases You can fit 40-50 people in your car?

This only works if the bus is popular. How often do buses in Portland have more than 5 people on them?

How often do cars have more than 5 people in them?

Re: Waymo in Portland

#585

Post by jrflowers »

cameldrv wrote: post #580
jrflowers wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, you definitely want a range of bus sizes. Some areas are served perfectly well with a couple of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Minotour

Still other are better served with these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200

https://railvelocipedes.org/ 8-)

Re: Waymo in Portland

#586

Post by UltraSane »

qwerpy wrote: post #564
UltraSane wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the owner of a company makes a Nazi salute in public twice and makes many racist comments and retweets on twitter and you just shrug and buy from the company anyway? You are confirming everything I assumed about cyber-truck buyers. You consider me deranged and not Musk? That is just absurd.

Hey man I don't want to argue anymore. I bought a cybertruck, not a Musk. Musk clearly has some issues and I wish he'd shut the hell up, but in my opinion there's so much to do and be happy about in life that it's a waste of time to get mad and negative about things like car purchases.

You bought a cybertruck from a company run by a racist nut job.

It is a very fragile truck that is very expensive to repair because stainless steel is a terrible material to make a truck body from.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_EJ3DyiiA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn4XzbMf9nY

Re: Waymo in Portland

#587

Post by llbbdd »

troupo wrote: post #579
llbbdd wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't bring up money except to call out that profitability of either trains or cars is irrelevant to actual utility and comfort. Obviously they both cost money and you can subsidize either one. I'm also not concerned with or pretending that alternative modes of transport are full replacements of cars; basic comparison of the modes obviates that. I also don't own a car, and if I did I wouldn't consider it precious,…

> I wouldn't consider it precious, or be worried about anybody taking it away. Public mass transit advocates always go there though, it's a pretty common ad-hominem-adjacent implication. Aka your pure fantasy that you present as fact. Of course there might be idiots who may claim to "seize the means of private transportation" or something like that, but let's not pretend it's a serious argument. > Cars are just gener…

> Aka your pure fantasy that you present as fact. Of course there might be idiots who may claim to "seize the means of private transportation" or something like that, but let's not pretend it's a serious argument.

I realize I could have phrased it better, but I was not talking about anybody seizing the means of private transportation. I was talking about train fetishists cheekily implying that people love their precious cars, which you did.

I also haven't argued that trains don't carry more people at once, I've just said that they suck in every other way. I also haven't argued to take away anything. Trains already exist almost everywhere they make sense to exist, which is apparently to funnel people back and forth in Japan and a couple of northeast US states on entirely private rail. It's honestly hard to find anything in your reply that intentionally or otherwise is actually responding to anything I said.

Re: Waymo in Portland

#588

Post by troupo »

llbbdd wrote: post #587
troupo wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't consider it precious, or be worried about anybody taking it away. Public mass transit advocates always go there though, it's a pretty common ad-hominem-adjacent implication. Aka your pure fantasy that you present as fact. Of course there might be idiots who may claim to "seize the means of private transportation" or something like that, but let's not pretend it's a serious argument. > Cars are just gener…

> Aka your pure fantasy that you present as fact. Of course there might be idiots who may claim to "seize the means of private transportation" or something like that, but let's not pretend it's a serious argument. I realize I could have phrased it better, but I was not talking about anybody seizing the means of private transportation. I was talking about train fetishists cheekily implying that people love their preci…

I've responded, but you decided to dismiss everything.

It's a fascinating psychological and sociological question: why Americans think that the only possible state of things is the current one as it exists in the US, and why they are completely incapable of imagining any ither possible solutions.

E.g. "Trains already exist almost everywhere they make sense to exist, which is apparently to funnel people back and forth in Japan and a couple of northeast US states".

Yup, country the size of US eastern seaboard with comparable population only needs to "funnel back and forth". And Northeast Corridor just apparently appeared out of nowhere because it somehow was needed exactly there, and not anywhere else in the US, and also "just to funnel people back and forth".

Unlike cars. Americans don't need any other forms of transportation because they are physically incapable of imagining other forms despite success cases existing even in the US, and proven to work even in the shittiest third-world countries.

It's not unlike talking to a brick wall.

Adieu.

Re: Waymo in Portland

#589

Post by xboxnolifes »

n8cpdx wrote: post #570
Ritewut wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assumed they are against density and not just mourning a nostalgic place for them?

If you say you support density but that support withers away at the slightest hint of nostalgia or trade off, or because some old ladies walk in the dead mall sometimes (that was the cited reason), then you don’t really support density. NIMBYs are usually not against new stuff in their backyard, they really just don’t want to lose the historic parking structures and culturally relevant SFHs already there. Perhaps you…

Literally nowhere did you mention that they said their support for density withered. You only said they mourned the loss of a mall they liked.

Those are not conflicting things. Mourning something does not imply disliking the thing that replaced it.

Re: Waymo in Portland

#590

Post by cucumber3732842 »

xnx wrote: post #397
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Low-density residential sprawl is mostly water-inefficient Which is more or less a non-issue east of the Missouri river

Indeed, the root of many water problems is people wanting to live in the desert.

Kind of begs the question why so much local level water stuff is federally regulated.

Why do North and South Carolina have to shell out to manage all their runoff in federally prescribed ways just because all the states on the Colorado river can't get along?

Why does St. Louis and every other "give and take from river" water district have to mandate all sorts of federally prescribed minutia written around assumptions of aquifer depletion? It's not like a lack of low flow toilets is gonna affect anything other than the size of the local water treatment plant.

Post reply on HN