3 ms·
I provided reasons why I think throughput would be affected, such as the fact that roundabout is a curved road explicitly designed to slow traffic down. With sl
by pi-e-sigma 3y ago
I provided reasons why I think throughput would be affected, such as the fact that roundabout is a curved road explicitly designed to slow traffic down. With slowed down traffic approaching from all directions it is reasonable, hence plausible, to assume that the throughput would be negatively affected. You instead just reply with some sophistry and don't bring any arguments grounded in reality. Especially your statement, that 'absent that proof, compatibility is plausible' just highlights that you don't even know what 'plausible' actually means because something can't be plausible by default, without any reasoning or facts backing it up
- andrewflnr 3y agoI note you've moved the goalposts from "obvious" causality to "reasonable, therefore plausible" causality. Still, I continue to find your attempt at "grounding" unconvincing. The mere fact that cars must slow for a roundabout does not automatically make it lower throughput than one where they have to actually stop for some unspecified interval. Speaking of specification, if I was trying to be grounded, I would assume that which system has higher throughput depends on the implementation details and situation, notably the timing of the lights and how much traffic is naturally on the given road. Details matter. You've been attempting to make generalizations irrespective of any of those details, and I'm saying they're not justified, or at best need much stronger evidence. But sure, I'm the sophist here. I'd ask you for "facts" to back up your claim, but you've already walked it back, so I guess I'm done.