Thanks for the detailed reply.
I guess it will depend on the location and the circumstances, but I remain sceptical. Here in Europe I see way too many bus lines being under-utilized in similar areas.
I think we might have to accept that people that used cars all their life are unlikely to switch to a bus service unless forced to by economic circumstances. Maybe the next generation is willing to move back into more dense housing areas and skip cars all together.
Well, I can’t comment really on the specific situation in Australia, but the examples seem a bit cherry picked for especially wealthy neighborhoods.
Also, I suspect these richer neighborhoods get better bus service because it pays for itself, something that is far less likely in the less dense and apparently not as wealthy suburbs.
Of course one can argue that other infrastructure investments into these suburbs are even more costly, but maybe the money is best spend on building multistory apartment buildings with cheap rent near the city center?
I don’t generally disagree, but I think you have a few blind spots in your argument.
First of all, poorer people that subsidize these services tend to not own houses at all, but rather rent apartments.
And secondly, sure economics of scale, but you don’t magically increase the number of riders by offering a higher frequency, at least not in the short term and especially not in areas where people already settled into a routine of using their own car. So by doubling or tripling the frequency you are effectively doubling of tripling the variable costs, without substantially increasing the income from a higher number of riders.
In general these bus lines are already cost optimized. If a bus runs every 30 minutes, that usually means a round trip takes about 50 minutes plus a bit flexibility and a short break for the driver. This way two busses and two drivers going in opposite directions can cover the whole route. Increasing the frequency immediately doubles the costs, as buses and drivers are discrete entities, but is unlikely to double the number of passengers.
Sure, but typically such lines operate at a loss already. Making them more frequent would make the service significantly more costly.
So either the inhabitants of the suburb will have to pay expensive bus tickets, which they will likely not do as most of them have a car already, or other, likely poorer, city inhabitants have to subsedize this bus service in this suburb even further than they already do.
These ideas tend to not work out that well, as the main cost-factor is often the bus-driver and increasing the frequency means hiring more drivers. I also think bus driving isn’t exactly an enjoyable job as it can be quite monotonous, so increasing the number of such jobs is probably not such a great idea.
What might work to some extend is some sort of shared but on demand mini-bus taxi service, and of course potentially self-driving mini-buses, but really ultimately there is little one can do to solve the fundamental transport issue of low density housing in such suburbs.
is rather cool and fully open-source.
I think parcel delivery, maybe with an automated storage locker at the tram-station would work well. It just needs a way to quickly unload the packages at the right station so that the tram doesn’t have to wait longer than necessary for the passengers.
Heavier cargo delivery to supermarkets or such is more difficult to solve, especially also because right now the trucks usually drive all the way to the delivery entrance of the market where they can be offloaded with a fork-lift or a similar device. But a relatively slow moving electric truck wouldn’t be such a bad solution I think. It could be built in a way that it can enter places normal cars shouldn’t.
I reported that already: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/issues/956
The story apparently is a bit more complex, with the biological mother having a fall-out with the married mother and moving in with the sperm-donor as the “official” dad. But regardless of that, I think the married mother should have some rights as it really is the same as any other divorced parent.
Dunno… click-baity title obviously and the argument doesn’t really hold up as it makes a up a quite peculiar definition of “Fediverse” and then pronounces that dead, while promoting what I think most people consider to be the meaning of “Fediverse” under a different term.
Also would be better without the personal vendetta against Mastodon and Gargron.
Uhm, not sure why you would want to play this or how the gameplay would work.
The only game I can think of that is a bit similar is This War of Mine.
I get his frustration about large companies using core-js and not contributing back, but he is at least partially sleeping in a bed of his own making by licensing core-js as MIT.
The founding idea of Free-Software was always that everyone contributes a little and by using a each others work you can grow a foundation that is larger than its individual parts. For that to work you should use a copyleft license like the AGPL and treat any library you develop not as an end in itself, but rather as a tool for something else (and this something else might or might not be what you make a living with).
Ups, sorry I didn’t notice as my Firefox addon just circumvented that pay-wall automatically. I guess there is a version on the internet archive.
All brace for the next phase of enshittification shortly after.
You can download the ebook here.
Please stop continuously building straw-man arguments, moving goal-posts and changing the topic when someone points out that you are spreading falsehoods.
It seems that no matter how ridiculous your initial position is, you somehow try to mend it into something that at least gives the superficial impression that you are “winning” the argument. Stop lying to yourself, you are convincing no-one other than maybe yourself.
I never claimed to know the answer, I simply pointed out that nuclear isn’t it either.
And yes, you started moving goal-posts as I simply disputed your original statement that nuclear is a viable alternative to overall fossil fuels use.
And did you even read the OP’s article? It clearly explains that nuclear is by far the most expensive option. As for environmental damage: are you seriously disputing the environmental damage of uranium mining & enrichment/recycling and nuclear fallout from inevitable accidents? Nothing in the entire life-cycle of renewables comes even close to that.
Those non-electricity nuclear use examples are clearly not economically feasible as otherwise they would be done already. Please show me even a single non-experimental & non-military use of them. So yes, those examples are laughable as a counter-point.
You said “there is no viable alternative to nuclear that actually works and can replace fossil fuels at scale”, which is a pure falsehood as nuclear can’t do that either. Nuclear can replace fossil fuels for electricity production and so can renewables (and at a lower cost with less environmental damage).
And when I pointed that out you suddenly moved goal-posts to overall energy use, which is totally besides the point and again nuclear can also not replace that, not even close. Those examples of non-electricity producing nuclear use are laughable and not feasible at scale nor are they actually done anywhere AFAIK. That is like saying solar-power can also be beamed from space. Yes technically it can rolleyes
And every time I argue with you I am strongly reminded of alt-right discussion tactics that do nothing but spread falsehoods and poison the discourse.
Maybe consider alternatives outside the browser. Many Fediverse Apps support UnifiedPush, which works great in combination with XMPP.