4 ms·

but that's not who this is aimed at I think a lot of legitimate criticism of HN's darlings starts with which markets and demographics they aim at, and whose pr

but that's not who this is aimed at I think a lot of legitimate criticism of HN's darlings starts with which markets and demographics they aim at, and whose problems they deem worthy of solving.

simonh 9y ago
It's not about worthiness, it's about having a solution or not. If Musk has a solution for long distance but doesn't have one for commuters, should he not pursue the long distance solution because reasons? That seems absurd.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- raleighm 9y ago
  Question is what municipalities should do, given that each expenditure has opportunity costs. I though the OP's point was about municipalities' priorities.
  - simonh 9y ago
    The Post I replied to explicitly called out HN darlings. As for the OP, are there no long distance transport problems worth solving? Really? It's just a daft and pointlessly negative comment, a variation on lazy whataboutism.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If Musk has a solution for long distance but doesn't have one for commuters He doesn't, because long-distance solutions depend on integration with local network solutions; you can solve local without long distance but not vice versa.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    They are related, but there is not a strict dependency. You can put a new airport into a place without worry about local transport significantly. (edited for grammar and post structure) Most airports just put in parking and sometimes a shuttle bus to move people around their massive parking complex, but even as large as those systems are they peanuts compared to the Airports main concern, Air Travel. Why are tunnels different?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > They are related, but there is not a strict dependency. You can put a new airport into a place without worry about local transport significantly. No, you can't, which is why when commercial airports are actually built, they are either carefully sited near freeways with excess capacity or have new freeways built and/or capacity added to existing freeways, often have local rail connections built, involve major upgrades to local surface roads, and involve other extensions of local mass and individual transit capacity.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  There are many viable solutions for commuters. There are many viable solutions for many problems. The choice of which problem to give first priority to, given an abundance of viable solutions for many problems, reveals much. As does the claim that only that particular problem has a viable solution. HN's priorities are skewed toward solving the problems of people who are, on the whole, similar to HN commenters. I happen to think this is a bad thing, and reflects a poor set of priorities; it's not "whataboutism" to suggest a different priority order. "Whataboutism" is commonly misunderstood (by those selfsame HN commenters) to mean an evasion of any priorities.

but that's not who this is aimed at I think a lot of legitimate criticism of HN's darlings starts with which markets and demographics they aim at, and whose problems they deem worthy of solving.

simonh 9y ago

It's not about worthiness, it's about having a solution or not. If Musk has a solution for long distance but doesn't have one for commuters, should he not pursue the long distance solution because reasons? That seems absurd.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
raleighm 9y ago
Question is what municipalities should do, given that each expenditure has opportunity costs. I though the OP's point was about municipalities' priorities.
- simonh 9y ago
  The Post I replied to explicitly called out HN darlings. As for the OP, are there no long distance transport problems worth solving? Really? It's just a daft and pointlessly negative comment, a variation on lazy whataboutism.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> If Musk has a solution for long distance but doesn't have one for commuters He doesn't, because long-distance solutions depend on integration with local network solutions; you can solve local without long distance but not vice versa.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  They are related, but there is not a strict dependency. You can put a new airport into a place without worry about local transport significantly. (edited for grammar and post structure) Most airports just put in parking and sometimes a shuttle bus to move people around their massive parking complex, but even as large as those systems are they peanuts compared to the Airports main concern, Air Travel. Why are tunnels different?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > They are related, but there is not a strict dependency. You can put a new airport into a place without worry about local transport significantly. No, you can't, which is why when commercial airports are actually built, they are either carefully sited near freeways with excess capacity or have new freeways built and/or capacity added to existing freeways, often have local rail connections built, involve major upgrades to local surface roads, and involve other extensions of local mass and individual transit capacity.
ubernostrum 9y ago
There are many viable solutions for commuters. There are many viable solutions for many problems. The choice of which problem to give first priority to, given an abundance of viable solutions for many problems, reveals much. As does the claim that only that particular problem has a viable solution. HN's priorities are skewed toward solving the problems of people who are, on the whole, similar to HN commenters. I happen to think this is a bad thing, and reflects a poor set of priorities; it's not "whataboutism" to suggest a different priority order. "Whataboutism" is commonly misunderstood (by those selfsame HN commenters) to mean an evasion of any priorities.