Nobody cares

Post by kylebenzle » Thu, Jan 16, 2025, 11:43 PM UTC

tqi wrote: post #425

Its ironic, because this dude doesn't seem to care enough to even the slightest bit of research to understand why any of these problems he highlights are the way they are, and lazily attributes everything to OTHER people not caring. LEDs last longer, are more energy efficient, and also reduce light pollution because they are more directional[1]. Took me 30 seconds to google. There are enormous design standards for de…

Post by smileysteve » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:31 AM UTC

pastage wrote: post #819

marcosdumay wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things are shitty for reasons but not for good reasons. I dunno. At the first problem, impeding cyclists that want to merge into a walkway zooming at 20mph without paying enough attention to even see their lane is ending is a quite good reason. Maybe he should be asking for some "cyclist-calming" measure instead, so they will slow down before not being able to make into the walkway.

It feels like zooming when you bicycle in those tight spaces at 9-12 km/h, which is a third of what you calld zooming. The point is that a collision at 12 km/h is pretty ok. The problem is that cyclists are always close to pedestrians so it feels unsafe even at slow speeds. The accident rate between cyclists and pedestrians are incredibly low so it is not really dangerous, but it feels like it.

Post by 1auralynn » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:57 AM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #826

rbetts wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad that darkness is respected in some places. The need to live in constant light is, to me, unnerving. Light pollution, like noise pollution, creates a myopic dome of sensory oblivion, separating us from experiencing the sounds of nature, the splendor the night sky, the emotions of isolation. I think we'd be better off with a nightly reminder of the natural world and expansive universe beyond our city block.

People are afraid of the darkness. I really wish that wasn't the case. But removing lights is an uphill battle powered by irrational arguments and doomed to failure even on the cases where it's clearly the best option. Even dimming the lights is hard.

Post by mactrey » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:06 AM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #849

Seattle3503 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing that depresses me is how ugly our cities have become. Buildings that go up are designed with a total lack of aesthetic intention. In Seattle, ostensibly there is a design review committee for multifamily and commercial buildings, but it doesn't appear to have made the city look any better, and their 2025 goals include "streamlining the Design Review process to be quicker and less costly for applicants, an…

> Who cares how beautiful grand buildings appear when you have people living in the street? Where's the followup part that the money saved on decorative brickwork is being used to fix homelessness? Because if it isn't, then this is a non-sequitur.

Post by bagels » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:47 AM UTC

stevedekorte wrote: post #883

gizmo wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there are "reasonable justifications" for the shitty status quo, but that's kind of the point. Things are shitty for reasons but not for good reasons. The author points to Japan to illustrate that you do get measurably better results when people habitually try to do good work. We're not actually doomed to have crappy furniture, flimsy and buggy appliances, byzantine legal codes, ugly architecture, and hosti…

But street lights don't have to use harsh 3000 kelvin LEDs, there are warm light LEDs (2400-2700 kelvin). For example, these lights are widely available for home, yet most people just buy the 3000K LED bulbs because (IME) it doesn't occur to them that there is a strong aesthetic (and health) difference between these colors. i.e. They don't care.