Mawr

17 ms·

361.
by Mawr 1y ago
> I'm sorry but "your tax" also includes the tax paid by people who drive private cars. Look up what % of infrastructure costs that tax covers wherever it is you live. Surprised? Now consider that the infrastructure is jus
362.
by Mawr 1y ago
> Also, they should do this without crippling cars, Do you mean without continuing to give them 99% of available resources? Cars are by far the most privileged form of transportation worldwide. We bend over backwards to subsidize them as
363.
by Mawr 1y ago
You want to buy a second-hand car. What's the first thing you check? Yep, the mileage. The cost of a car is basically down to its depreciation, which is basically down to its mileage.
364.
by Mawr 1y ago
Could you kindly stop shitposting?
365.
by Mawr 1y ago
Did you cherry pick that part of the sentence and ignored "(compared to a hierarchy of abstract classes, dependency injected implementations, nested pattern matching with destructuring etc etc)." on purpose or?
366.
by Mawr 1y ago
I doubt those very people would confuse the two when presented with both next to each other: / \ / \. The issue is, they're not characters used day-to-day so few people have made the association that the slash is the one goin
367.
by Mawr 1y ago
That's just the other extreme, which is not that much less silly. It's not unreasonable to spend 300$ on a good pair of headphones.
368.
by Mawr 1y ago
Don't ask questions, just consume product.
369.
by Mawr 1y ago
I don't think anyone aware of this thinks it's a good tradeoff. The more interesting question is why the tradeoff was made in the first place. The answer is, it's relatively easy for us to see and understand the impact of the
370.
by Mawr 1y ago
Hah, comparing the training of an airline pilot to that of a driver. Thanks for the laugh. I'll give you one thing: it's a great example of the continuum fallacy. I'm definitely going to use it in the future to help explain t
371.
by Mawr 1y ago
> It's a lighter, slower, cheaper motorcycle that doesn't need a license, registration, insurance, or gasoline. There's a reason why motorcycles need those things. As well as why they have those thick tires, suspension, la
372.
by Mawr 1y ago
The operative word here is "I". It's not people who are experienced enough cyclists to be able to go fast that are the problem. It's novices that are able to go super fast without all that experience you've gained o
373.
by Mawr 1y ago
The law requires bad design/implementation?
374.
by Mawr 1y ago
Don't watch Silicon Valley.
375.
by Mawr 1y ago
That's a lot of words to say "an adult has consented to having sex with another adult". Really, this is just denigrating to women. You're implying they need to be treated like children who cannot think for themselves.
376.
by Mawr 1y ago
> First, many (most?) cyclists do not respect basic road safety rules Wonderful, and the least safety conscious cyclist in the world is still largely only a danger to himself. > In France, each dataset shows consistently that accident
377.
by Mawr 1y ago
Yes, per mile driven.
378.
by Mawr 1y ago
> Here's the thing. A well-designed human-oriented city like Houston has FASTER commutes than ANY similar-sized city in Europe. Didn't I debunk your nonsense "data" last time? Why are you repeating incorrect data when
379.
by Mawr 1y ago
> So in other words, your city made it extremely inconvenient to use anything BUT bikes to get around. Which is exactly my point. No, most cities worldwide are designed to make using anything but a car to get around extremely inconvenien
380.
by Mawr 1y ago
> They are the absolute WORST commute mode, so people (on average) choose literally anything else when they have that option. Objectively wrong. See the Netherlands. > There are cities with great bike _and_ car infrastructure, and the
381.
by Mawr 1y ago
Were you forced to operate your vehicle by the pedestrian crossing the street? No? Then take responsibility for your own damn choices. You're the one endangering everyone around you, not the pedestrians.
382.
by Mawr 1y ago
Whatever happened to the person choosing to operate dangerous machinery being the one responsible for it? Putting the onus of safety on everyone else is incredibly selfish and of course illogical. Oh, and I'll be sure to tell my blind
383.
by Mawr 1y ago
The enclosed nature of the car is what does that.
384.
by Mawr 1y ago
I don't think bicycles, trams, buses and trains existed back then in the way they do now.
385.
by Mawr 1y ago
> There is absolutely zero chance any respectable study would support that focusing on maintaining exactly 110 km in a 110km is safer than allowing a 10% buffer (going 10km over) so you can focus on the road and spend more of your attent
386.
by Mawr 1y ago
> 30mph was close to the sweet spot and had been for decades. For car drivers maybe. From the POV of a pedestrian, 30 mph is very fast.
387.
by Mawr 1y ago
> cars that require a fraction of stopping distance of a truck at given speed You may want to update your knowledge on the stopping distances of modern trucks. > are fined for going 3-4 km over limit Obviously. Is there anything confu
388.
by Mawr 1y ago
> There are many cases where wide roads with good visibility and few pedestrians crossing have 20mph limits. > My road has a 20mph limit. On the bit I live on it makes no difference - narrower, parked cars etc. means you drive very sl
389.
by Mawr 1y ago
> But if "slower is safer" is the only argument for 20mph then the logical conclusion is 0mph. Hilariously wrong. Kinetic energy is equal to mass times velocity squared divided by half. That squaring of velocity kills your ar
390.
by Mawr 1y ago
$32k = 27.5k€, and if we include the insurance numbers you provided: $27.5k = 23.5k€ > waiters make more in America By apparently 1.5k€ per year? Not a strong argument as it stands and we haven't even begun talking about the lifesty

More ›