1. #2761
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Was I ever expressing that this was a thing that wouldn't take 20-50 years?
    I think you misunderstand what I meant by "long term". Think more in terms of centuries. Plural.

    The Netherlands started their policies towards public transport and bikes in the late 70s. They didn't start getting a reputation for cykling until the late 90s.
    The Netherlands has the advantage that most of their city layouts were framed around a core that was built prior to the emergence of the automobile. Same applies to most of Europe, particularly the big cities. This is why the cities in the USA with the best mass transit tend to be on the East Coast, where they had the opportunity to build up big before the automobile, NYC in particular. Those cores simply aren't designed primarily for car traffic. The original street plan for Manhattan was established in 1811, for instance.

    But the first step needed is action on a local level.
    The first step is having a practically achievable goal you can campaign towards at the local level.


  2. #2762
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Was I ever expressing that this was a thing that wouldn't take 20-50 years?
    The Netherlands started their policies towards public transport and bikes in the late 70s. They didn't start getting a reputation for cykling until the late 90s.

    But the first step needed is action on a local level.

    Same for the people who actually express leftist ideology in the US. They're far better of canvasing and politicking locally, than regionally or statewide or nationwide.
    There's something you may not be accounting for the two party system in the US makes it next to impossible to hold politicians accountable even local ones. Especially now where your choice is a "centrist' or a nut bag Qanon election denier. Those who express leftist ideology despise the democratic party but there really is no other viable alternative that wouldn't basically hand power to said nut bags. The problems in the US are systematic interconnected and very difficult to fix until some historical event happens that change dynamics.

  3. #2763
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Was I ever expressing that this was a thing that wouldn't take 20-50 years?
    The Netherlands started their policies towards public transport and bikes in the late 70s. They didn't start getting a reputation for cykling until the late 90s.

    But the first step needed is action on a local level.

    Same for the people who actually express leftist ideology in the US. They're far better of canvasing and politicking locally, than regionally or statewide or nationwide.
    The Netherlands is also less than .5% the size of the us.

    https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/coun.../united-states

    They tried to make a short light rail connection near us and NIMBY complaints killed it, forget the whole Dem-Rep issues.

    You would think high speed rail would be a no brainer but on a federal level there appears to be zero movement. Even fixing bridges is a “controversial” debate.

    The problems in passing things in the US is deeper than an optimistic “School House Rock” version of reality.

  4. #2764
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The World-Continent
    Posts
    9,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Pretty much. Musk probably just alienated a large portion of his primary demographic, and only attracted a few libertarian cryptobros that invested in bitcoin early to buy drugs and CP. He also obviously doesn't care that much about the value of Twitter or Tesla. What could cause a man to mid life crisis implode his entire life's monetary worth? A tempting offer from Jared Kushner/the right/Saudis/Russia? Or just mania?
    Inability to accept his trans daughter is likely part of it. (That could just be a symptom, but I suspect there's a casual link.)
    "For the present this country is headed in directions which can only carry ruin to it and will create a situation here dangerous to world peace. With few exceptions, the men who are running this Government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere. Others are exalted and in a frame of mind that knows no reason."
    - U.S. Ambassador to Germany, George Messersmith, June 1933

  5. #2765
    Anyway back to the actual topic…


    Surprise! Looks like the whole incident with the “stalker” that resulted in the whole @elonjet/journalist banning is a big nothing.

    https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-police...son-1849918348

  6. #2766
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    18,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Shkar View Post
    They're right though. Solar panel efficiency is heavily tied to relative angle to the sun. Unless the sun is directly overhead, a flat panel is very inefficient, and there's no real way to improve that.
    It's not that terrible actually. NAIT's array showed that the worst angle they used (14 degrees) produced 86% as much summer power as the optimal 53 degrees (=latitude).

    And the roof of that car isn't flat either, so the 14 degrees figure is probably about right for this car.

    And this figures can decently be considered near-worst case, as you don't get major population centers that much further north and anywhere south will loose less generation due to poor angle.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  7. #2767
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmic Janitor View Post
    While that is an option and probably an overall desirable one, it will also be a very hard sale to people who have come to experience a certain luxury in their life. Let's be real here, public transportation is the best economic solution, but most people who use it regularily would probably rather not. The sales numbers for SUVs kinda prove that already.
    This assumption is probably not accurate. There is plenty of evidence that suggests people don't use cars because they want to use cars, they use cars, because cars are most convenient or because they are forced to use them, rather. People don't buy SUVs because they love being football mom's driving their kids 500m to the sports field, they are forced to, because the streets are unsafe for the kids to walk there on their own.

    You might think that's the same, but it's really not. If you build infrastructure centered around cars, of course cars will be more convenient. I've tried to get from one of the satellite settlements outside of Austin into Austin proper. It's impossible without a car. I was told I'd need to actually walk along the highway.

    Here's a YT video that is a pretty good entry point into that discussion. Dude's making a lot of good points. A LOT of good points.

    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  8. #2768
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post

    The Netherlands has the advantage that most of their city layouts were framed around a core that was built prior to the emergence of the automobile. Same applies to most of Europe, particularly the big cities. This is why the cities in the USA with the best mass transit tend to be on the East Coast, where they had the opportunity to build up big before the automobile, NYC in particular. Those cores simply aren't designed primarily for car traffic. The original street plan for Manhattan was established in 1811, for instance.
    American cities used to have public transportation. Just as much as any European city.



    This is the Houston TX. street car network map from 1895.

    American cities used to have public transportation. It was only during the 1950's and 60's that cities were torn down to make room for parking lots. You have to tear down very little of American cities today to make room for public transportation, you just need to redevelop parking lots.
    Last edited by Elder Millennial; 2022-12-21 at 06:39 PM.

  9. #2769
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    22,582

  10. #2770
    Banned Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    23,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    American cities used to have public transportation. Just as much as any European city.



    This is the Houston TX. street car network map from 1895.

    American cities used to have public transportation. It was only during the 1950's and 60's that cities were torn down to make room for parking lots. You have to tear down very little of American cities today to make room for public transportation, you just need to redevelop parking lots.

    Large cities have public transport. rural areas. arguably 90% of America doesn't. population is too low, towns are too spread out for cost effective public transport.

  11. #2771
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Large cities have public transport. rural areas. arguably 90% of America doesn't. population is too low, towns are too spread out for cost effective public transport.
    Do you have any citation for that? If I remember correctly the last census puts like 80% ish of the US population in urban areas or what they refer to as urban clusters. It doesn't really have to be the city, suburbs are technically urban areas as well since they are very populated.

  12. #2772
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post

    The Netherlands has the advantage that most of their city layouts were framed around a core that was built prior to the emergence of the automobile. Same applies to most of Europe, particularly the big cities. This is why the cities in the USA with the best mass transit tend to be on the East Coast, where they had the opportunity to build up big before the automobile, NYC in particular. Those cores simply aren't designed primarily for car traffic. The original street plan for Manhattan was established in 1811, for instance.
    I'm probably missing some context here, but in what sense is having cities not designed for cars and advantage...? Because as someone who has to drive through that in rush hour on a regular basis, there's not much advantage to be seen...

  13. #2773
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Large cities have public transport. rural areas. arguably 90% of America doesn't. population is too low, towns are too spread out for cost effective public transport.
    83% of the US population lives in urban areas. This is expected to rise to 90% by 2050.

    Urban area doesn't need to mean a city of half a million.

    Do you think small towns of 5000 in Europe or Asia don't have bus lines?

    There are 3 myths constantly thrown around about public transport in the US.

    1. Cars are more convenient.
    2. LITERALLY NOBODY LIVES A CITY (this is the weirdest one).
    3. Everything is built around cars, and this is JUST IMMUTABLE, IT CANNOT BE CHANGED, ITS IMPOSSIBLE, IT HAS BEEN ORDAINED AS SUCH BY GOD!

    Well...the convenience of cars is tied to the absolute absence of alternatives. 4 out 5 Americans lives in an urban area, and you don't need to live in a city of 2 million to have public transportation, you don't, this is a goofy excuse used nowhere else, it's just something American say so often they just believe it and even convinced others that it's true. America used to have public transportation and it can have it again...this whole car thing is a relative novelty, Ben Franklin and Jefferson weren't riding Escalades from their Inn to the Philadelphia congress, America wasn't founded by the Founding Father and Ford Motors.
    Last edited by Elder Millennial; 2022-12-21 at 10:11 PM.

  14. #2774
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The Netherlands has the advantage that most of their city layouts were framed around a core that was built prior to the emergence of the automobile. Same applies to most of Europe, particularly the big cities. This is why the cities in the USA with the best mass transit tend to be on the East Coast, where they had the opportunity to build up big before the automobile, NYC in particular. Those cores simply aren't designed primarily for car traffic. The original street plan for Manhattan was established in 1811, for instance.
    This is demonstrably false, Amsterdam is just the worst example for your case.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  15. #2775
    Quote Originally Posted by BrokenRavens View Post
    Anyway back to the actual topic…


    Surprise! Looks like the whole incident with the “stalker” that resulted in the whole @elonjet/journalist banning is a big nothing.

    https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-police...son-1849918348
    Literally nobody could have predicted that Elom made that bullshit up.

    Guess it sure seems like he doxxed an actually innocent victim and that he and his security team - you know that thing that's supposed to help him not be so paranoid all the time - were the aggressors.

  16. #2776
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    I'm probably missing some context here, but in what sense is having cities not designed for cars and advantage...? Because as someone who has to drive through that in rush hour on a regular basis, there's not much advantage to be seen...
    American cities are designed for cars but it's no advantage at all because everyone driving means congestion so in the end it's a very bad thing. You spent more time in traffic than anything else since no one has any option but to drive. It's not good urban planning it's pretty fucking awful you wouldn't want the US option.

  17. #2777
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    I'm probably missing some context here, but in what sense is having cities not designed for cars and advantage...? Because as someone who has to drive through that in rush hour on a regular basis, there's not much advantage to be seen...
    "Designed for cars" doesn't mean "designed to the benefit of commuters", it means "designed with the idea that commuters will be traveling by car", and thus including the parking needs, wider roads to accommodate traffic, the decentralization of housing into suburbs while focusing the city center on what are mostly tall commercial skyscrapers, etc. The idea being that most residents will commute from suburbs or satellite cities into the city center and back, by car. The suburbanization goals exclude integrated commercial, because those same residents have vehicles to travel further distances to shop, so you don't need a grocery within walking distance. It's not meant to be better for residents. It's better for businesses, including car manufacturers and oil companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    This is demonstrably false, Amsterdam is just the worst example for your case.
    In what way, specifically? Amsterdam as a city's been around well over 500 years. The canal system dates back to the 17th Century.


  18. #2778
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    This assumption is probably not accurate. There is plenty of evidence that suggests people don't use cars because they want to use cars, they use cars, because cars are most convenient or because they are forced to use them, rather. People don't buy SUVs because they love being football mom's driving their kids 500m to the sports field, they are forced to, because the streets are unsafe for the kids to walk there on their own.

    You might think that's the same, but it's really not. If you build infrastructure centered around cars, of course cars will be more convenient. I've tried to get from one of the satellite settlements outside of Austin into Austin proper. It's impossible without a car. I was told I'd need to actually walk along the highway.

    Here's a YT video that is a pretty good entry point into that discussion. Dude's making a lot of good points. A LOT of good points.
    https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54
    I thought you were german? Ah anyway, even here with a mostly functioning public transport system I certainly didn't meet many people that enjoyed commuting from the outskirts into the city of munich each day and that train connection wasn't even THAT bad (I only needed to change from the city train into a tram once). I did it because a car was too expensive for me (in uni), not because I enjoyed freezing my ass off at an outdoor train station while the train had a 20% chance to never arrive.. I guess we need to differentiate between long distance commutes and people that actually live within cities that can practiacally fall into the subway and just arrive where they wanted to go with a maximum variance of 5 minutes. These kind of intervalls are certainly not realistic for mid distance travel though. Admittedly, there are alot of other factors, like I can drive alot faster than 70 mph here usually.

    Edit: I guess I should stop derailing the thread though. :P (pun intended)
    Last edited by Cosmic Janitor; 2022-12-21 at 09:48 PM.
    You are welcome, Metzen. I hope you won't fuck up my underground expansion idea.

  19. #2779
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    37,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    "Designed for cars" doesn't mean "designed to the benefit of commuters", it means "designed with the idea that commuters will be traveling by car", and thus including the parking needs, wider roads to accommodate traffic, the decentralization of housing into suburbs while focusing the city center on what are mostly tall commercial skyscrapers, etc. The idea being that most residents will commute from suburbs or satellite cities into the city center and back, by car. The suburbanization goals exclude integrated commercial, because those same residents have vehicles to travel further distances to shop, so you don't need a grocery within walking distance. It's not meant to be better for residents. It's better for businesses, including car manufacturers and oil companies.



    In what way, specifically? Amsterdam as a city's been around well over 500 years. The canal system dates back to the 17th Century.
    I simply love Japanese urbanization. Tall apartment complexes and narrow roads meant the necessity for more robust public transport, leading to a comprehensive rail system that spans the entire nation, meaning you can basically get from anywhere to anywhere on a train. There are some areas of the country even that aren't accessible by road, and can only be gotten to by rail. On top of that, they don't have as complex or as strict of zoning codes, meaning a lot of people run restaurants and other businesses out of the bottom floors of their homes and live on the top floor(s).

    The US system just feels so entirely permanently fucked. Car manufacturers really pushed for automobile infrastructure and they got it.
    “Terrible things are happening outside. Poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared.”
    Diary of Anne Frank
    January 13, 1943

  20. #2780
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    That's why public transportation is needed also, dispelling the whole myth of car=comfort.
    The US is simply too big and too wide open for that, the only places that Public Transportation works, is in the big cities with buses and subways/trains. I live in a small ass town in the middle of the Midwest, we don't even have Ubers/Lyfts here because it wouldn't be worth it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •