91–100 of 332 posts
All this so a handful of passengers a week can wait for the extremely small pool of vehicles in a dusty hole
[flagged]
which means the snake oil tends to be called a lot.
All this so a handful of passengers a week can wait for the extremely small pool of vehicles in a dusty hole
[flagged]
There's little to describe "progress" or "technology" in this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> >Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation What is an example of a regulation that was a "huge" hinderance to innovation? Looking at the past 40 years of the US technological progress and the only thing I seen hindering innovation are the tech companies themselves through monopoly, monopsony, patents, and regulatory capture. (Unless the last one is what you meant, but that's a regul…
In the U.S., McKinsey estimates that large infrastructure projects typically take 4 to 5 years to go through federal permitting before construction can begin. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh...
800 environment violations in service of the development of modern subterranean transportation is a utilitarian trade I'll take any day of the week.
> in service of the development of modern subterranean transportation It's not really that, it's a weird parody of "modern subterranean transportation". They could do interesting things with it, but right now it's just private roads. It isn't more efficient than a subway, it isn't more flexible, but it's likely more dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you are just shilling for polluting billionaires. What an acidic thing to fling. I want us to build infrastructure. Nowhere did I say we need do whatever Musk says. I want us to use cost-benefit analysis to judge infrastructure projects rather than the heavy moral framing we get a lot.
Well isn't the boring company trying to build his dumbass single lane tesla road? Is this really infrastructure or just 'trains with extra steps and no safety'
Instead of bringing up safety, I'd bring up the microplastics and other pollutants emitted by the technology of the elastomeric tire and which might be an intrinsic property of cost-effective use of the technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Many regulations are terrible and serve as a huge hindrance to innovation, and effectively restrict certain things to only the already-massively-rich entrepreneurs. However, (IMHO) there are a lot of regulations that are important and absolutely should be enforced up front. Finding the right balance is kind of impossible, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater,…
In some cases you are correct, however the happy middle in this case probably does not include many (most?) of their violations. One particular example: > Workers have complained of chemical burns from the waste material generated by the tunneling process, and firefighters must decontaminate their equipment after conducting rescues from the project sites. The company was fined more than $112,000 by Nevada’s Occupatio…
All this so a handful of passengers a week can wait for the extremely small pool of vehicles in a dusty hole
Have you ridden the existing Vegas tunnel? Tens of thousands of riders when I was there and not a spec of dirt. Very far from perfect, but a long way from useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The truth is somewhere in the middle." Another day, another invocation of the golden mean fallacy.
Another day, another invocation of the false dichotomy fallacy. If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges. That's a pretty bad (and ironic) fallacy to commit, unless you think everything in this world (or at least all regulations) are binary (either perfect or completely worthless)
In one dimension. If both sides are fundamentally wrong, the middle is probably also mischaracterised.
Pro-and anti-phlogiston theorists [1] weren’t validated by a little phlogiston. They were superseded by oxygen theory.