3 ms·

It's saying that currently only desktop computers are being built, and they're being shoehorned into both supercomputer applications (modelling weather) and emb

It's saying that currently only desktop computers are being built, and they're being shoehorned into both supercomputer applications (modelling weather) and embedded areas (controlling a lightbulb via a Dell OptiPlex). Having two classes of devices would be an improvement of the current situation.

josephcsible 5y ago
But it's not the case that only stroads are being built. There's plenty of things that are unambiguously streets and plenty of things that are unambiguously roads. If the argument were "not everything should be a stroad", I'd agree, but they're saying they want to eradicate all stroads.
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  Because there are very few situations where a stroad is actually appropriate. If your goal is to move people, a limited access high speed road is the right way to do it. If your goal is to support commerce, a low speed, mixed traffic street that can support a lot of homes an businesses in a small area is the right way to do it. The high speed and land use of stroads makes them inefficient and dangerous for commerce, and the fact that there's so much on-and-off traffic makes them slow and dangerous for transit. They are the worst of both worlds.
- chabons 5y ago
  You're correct, they are advocating that stroads be removed. The difference is that in your comparison to computers you assume that roads, like computers, have a quasi-linear trade-off between performance and power (ie: alpha x performance - beta x power = 0, obviously a simplification, but I hope it gets my point across) and thus a middle-ground between the extremes represents a good compromise for a variety of applications. Strong Towns appears to be arguing that the trade-off between movement (roads) and value (streets) is highly non-linear, and that the middle-ground's combined performance is so much worse than either a street or road that it's not worth building. See the comment below about counter-tops vs. stoves for an example of an extreme binary case.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > […] but they're saying they want to eradicate all stroads. Correct. Because as a sibling comment notes, they are a "compromise" that serves neither purpose very well. See the Not Just Bikes video referenced elsewhere in this discussion for a fuller treatment.

josephcsible 5y ago

But it's not the case that only stroads are being built. There's plenty of things that are unambiguously streets and plenty of things that are unambiguously roads. If the argument were "not everything should be a stroad", I'd agree, but they're saying they want to eradicate all stroads.

hannasanarion 5y ago
Because there are very few situations where a stroad is actually appropriate. If your goal is to move people, a limited access high speed road is the right way to do it. If your goal is to support commerce, a low speed, mixed traffic street that can support a lot of homes an businesses in a small area is the right way to do it. The high speed and land use of stroads makes them inefficient and dangerous for commerce, and the fact that there's so much on-and-off traffic makes them slow and dangerous for transit. They are the worst of both worlds.
chabons 5y ago
You're correct, they are advocating that stroads be removed. The difference is that in your comparison to computers you assume that roads, like computers, have a quasi-linear trade-off between performance and power (ie: alpha x performance - beta x power = 0, obviously a simplification, but I hope it gets my point across) and thus a middle-ground between the extremes represents a good compromise for a variety of applications. Strong Towns appears to be arguing that the trade-off between movement (roads) and value (streets) is highly non-linear, and that the middle-ground's combined performance is so much worse than either a street or road that it's not worth building. See the comment below about counter-tops vs. stoves for an example of an extreme binary case.
throw0101a 5y ago
> […] but they're saying they want to eradicate all stroads. Correct. Because as a sibling comment notes, they are a "compromise" that serves neither purpose very well. See the Not Just Bikes video referenced elsewhere in this discussion for a fuller treatment.