Public transport has inherent problems that cannot be solved that will always have it be less convenient than a car.
(1) Does not pick you up from your home and does not drop you off at where you need to go.
(2) Does not start at your schedule. Missed by a hair? Wait up to 2h.
(3) Impossible to transport more than you can carry.
(4) Does not scale. When there are too many people, some will have to wait for the next train or bus. When there are too few people everything still moves around nearly empty.
(5) Being exposed to the public, which could mean drug addicts and insane people that will stab you in the neck for no reason. But mostly just smelly lowlifes that might take a piss in front of you.
No matter how great your public transport is, it cannot solve these inherent issues while being cheaper than a car.
4. Most cars move around nearly empty. When there are too many people (often 1 per car), you get stuck in jams. So cars do not scale either. In this regard public transportation arguably scale better.
1. Bicycles, electric scooters or even walking answer 90% of that concern unless your city is designed against its users.
3. When you need to carry lotta stuff then yes, use a car (either yours or rental). Does it justify bringing your whole car when you do not need to carry anything?
5. True, but I am concerned about what that means about your relationship with society. Or the society you live in.
2. You would NOT wait up to 2 hours in any decent public transportation system.
So yes, cars are still the best solution in some cases. No one argues against that. It is just a poor default.
Cars scale, because if on one day for some reason only a single person wants to go anywhere, only a single car will be deployed. And on the next day, when suddenly a million people want to go anywhere, up to a million cars will be deployed.
Getting stuck in jams is down to badly designed roads. For example the use of traffic lights, whose only job it is to stop the flow of traffic.
---
If you need to take a bike or walk, then why not just go to your destination that way? I'll also have you know that not every passenger can have a bike when riding a bus or train. Capacity doesn't allow for this.
---
What use is a rental car for carrying lots of stuff? First you need to go to where the rental car is and then you have to bring it back. Unless the rental car can drive by itself to where you are and drive by itself back it seem really cumbersome.
The issue with carrying stuff is that this will come up eventually and once you already own a car since you have to, why not use it when you don't necessarily have to, just because it is convenient?
---
Can't do much about society. We unfortunately do not lock up insane people anymore and there are even talks of putting mentally disabled people into normal public schools. We live in crazy times.
---
You WILL definitely wait up to 2h, maybe even longer. In fact, you will just be happy that eventually something does show up to take you home. Of course, you can then declare that whatever system you have is not a "decent" transportation system, but it will be reality, unless you live in a state capital and only travel within the city. Once you need to travel to a different state all bets are off.
---
My argument isn't that that cars are better and more convenient than public transport, my argument is that public transport has inherent issues that are impossible to solve and can therefore never replace the role cars have in society as the default.
I hope for a future with cars on demand, where they drive to your home by themselves, you use them, and then they drive off by themselves. But even that won't work very well as it means other people using these cars and thus their cleanliness being in jeopardy. Guess the only way to solve that is by using something I don't want: a surveillance state.
I strongly suggest visiting a city with good public transit, when cities follow good design almost all of your issues become moot.
Your experience is obviously about North American car dependent cities, which have all the issues you mention, but it definitely is not that way everywhere. Europe, Asia, and some cities or parts of cities in North America have great public transit that is more convenient and faster than driving.
Having a solution where cars drive people everywhere is definitely not a universally better system. Sprawl and car-centric design makes other (and in many people’s opinion) more pleasant forms of transportation difficult.
For example there are many dense cities and towns where you can find (almost) every amenity within a 3 minute walk: grocery store, barber, bar, cafe, school, etc. Obviously there are some trade-offs, and some people may prefer to live in less dense areas, but that is easily achievable within 10-15 min walking distance to those amenities while still being very car accessible
> I strongly suggest visiting a city with good public transit
I live in one. What you are talking about is fantasy. I'm German and live in a large city.
The reality of it is that within the city I just walk everywhere, because taking the tram isn't worth it for small errands. Neither in time nor in money.
When I need to travel to a different state, using public transit is awful. It doesn't only need to be decent in one city. It needs to be decent across the whole country. Because if it is not, I still need a car. And when I have a car, I might as well use it, since it's more convenient.
> Cars scale, because if on one day for some reason only a single person wants to go anywhere, only a single car will be deployed.
They downscale pretty well, although the roads and parking space are still there. In practice downscaling does not happen much, though.
> If you need to take a bike or walk, then why not just go to your destination that way?
Because it would take me a whole day walking and only an hour walking + train ? Also, not every passenger needs a bicycle.
As for carrying stuff, I do have a small car. I still mostly move by bycicle and public transportation because it is often faster, easier, cheaper and I dont have to bring a metric ton a metal to carry my 80kg of body meat.
The car is for visiting remote places with the kids, for example. Public transportation just doesn't work there, agreed.
For the record I never had any real issue with anyone in trains or buses.
I did have to wait for 2h occasionally when there some accident on the line but I also got stuck in jams for hours because of some accident downstream. So it's a tie for me. This said, I never had to wait for 2h because I missed a bus in a well deserved area.
I believe it depends heavily on the place we live in. FWIW I'm in a second tier French city, about 200k inhabitants.
I don't even care if you're going to say my rebuttal is sh*t. I will not be putting any effort into refuting your blind allegiance to the car over public transport.
> When you need to carry lotta stuff then yes, use a car (either yours or rental). Does it justify bringing your whole car when you do not need to carry anything?
Technically, no.
But if you need that car once or twice a week to carry things then you already have the car. If you have it, it would be difficult to justify a 2h30m commute to work on public transit (my scenario) when I can just drive in 40 minutes with that car I already have.
What I really wish for is a lot more support for safe bike trails. I can commute to work in ~2 hours in a bike (still faster than public transport). I think with an e-bike I could cut that to barely more than an hour, and get some exercise and fresh air every day. But I do it only rarely because the route involves many stretches of dangerous avenues with barely a bike lane.
> Does not start at your schedule. Missed by a hair? Wait up to 2h.
Doesn't sound like it? What kind of functional transport has a once a 2 hour schedule? I see this in rural areas but not in cities with good public transport.
Public transport isn't only within a city. It's also for traveling to a different city. Or half across the country. Within the city I just walk everywhere.
It's common for trains going to different cities to only come by every two hours. If you are somewhere more rural it might only come once per day, if at all.
Ah yeah, apologies, I'd assumed you were talking about within city transport even though you didn't say that!
Maybe I'm lucky in my commute, I live in a small town in the UK, and head into London once a week- if I do miss my train it's about 20 minutes until the next at peak times.
I honestly can't think of anything worse than trying to do that journey driving though, it'd be twice as long, and very expensive to park etc.
Being on time for transportation that goes across the country is kind of expected, right? It's not like these things leave early. They leave on time or _maybe_ they leave late, but never early.
> If you are somewhere more rural it might only come once per day, if at all.
No one is arguing a complete replacement of cars, especially in rural areas. This is a strawman.
Most of your arguments throughout this thread are, really.
> Being on time for transportation that goes across the country is kind of expected, right?
You'd think so, but the trains are regularly arriving late. It's not like a single train will always bring you to your destination. You'll have to switch trains multiple times and when one of your trains is late, you won't make it in time for the next and will have to wait.
> No one is arguing a complete replacement of cars
You might not be, but I've had this discussion countless times with people advocating for banning cars. I'm not against public transport, I'm just saying it has unresolvable issues that prevent it from being as useful as a car.
> Public transport has inherent problems that cannot be solved that will always have it be less convenient than a car.
I guess maybe? My original comment was about the benefits of relatively good public transport vs flying cars (which seem space age but don't add a lot of value to our lives).
I think you're arguing a world with only cars might be more workable than a world with only public transport? I'm not sure that's a choice that's required by anyone though?
1) I have a bus stop outside my house that has a very convenient route,
2) It goes every 15 minutes, sometimes more. If I drive I have to spend more time than that looking for parking.
3) Not really true. I have managed to move several large suitcases in one go.
4) Scales better than cars?
5) Fortunately the public in my country seem cleaner and less drug addicted than those in yours.
> Public transport has inherent problems that cannot be solved that will always have it be less convenient than a car.
Keyword here being 'convenient'.
We have been seduced by convenience. Moreso than simple greed, I would say. Unfortunately, convenience is killing us. It is also robbing us of satisfaction.
While I respect the public transit system, it has many disadvantages over private cars. The NYC subway, for instance, is amazing in many ways, but if you're just slightly old or infirm, you can't navigate it. DC's subway, built at a yuge price, does have elevators but they are often broken. And if you're traveling at non-rush hours, you'll have to wait 5-20 minutes and then pause your trip for every stop along the way.
I can see how a young, fit and childless 20 something would be much happier with a good public transport system, but once you stop fitting that narrow model, your affection for urban dreams dies slowly.
And don't get me started on the price for construction and maintenance.
This is why you build transit for everyone. If you look at transit around the world (Japan, Singapore) you'll see transit that the old or infirm happily take. It's possible, you just need to believe that transit CAN be good for everyone! It doesn't and shouldn't be just for the "young and healthy".
All of those places you listed don't tolerate a homeless/mentally unstable on public transport. Thats the only way it can work. No alternative. Strict enforcement of public behavior on them. The left leaning policies in all the big cities, where public transport would benefit most, aren't compatible with this requirement. Ours only recently started gaslighting us into claiming they never supported defunding the police!
I know exactly zero people that use public transport because of safety, specifically homeless/druggies. And yes, we all tried. I was an idiot and went with a kid, for my first and last time, after listening to a local, with mental blinders on.
I'm actually, very clearly, referring to public transit and the realities of shared spaces that don't have behavioral enforcement, and, in most big cities, complete apathy and blindness to bad behavior.
No, I did. That's the apathy I was referring to. It's an excuse to allow unacceptable behavior, at the expense of everyone else in the shared space, leaving that shared space to be abandoned by anyone who has the means to abandon it.
Cities poll these things. Look up your local public transport polls, to see what others think. If you're in SF, for example, you wont be remotely surprised by the results [1].
I've never seen anyone so clearly talk past someone. I'm not in SF. For example.
And, you haven't said a word about even the possibility that good public healthcare, including mental healthcare funding, and a good social safety net vastly reduces those terribly inconvenient people in the streets with nowhere to go.
But in that case you'd have to blame the people in charge instead of the people.
As the announcement reminds us, NYC’s system has “over 150 accessible subway stations.” While there’s certainly room for improvement, I wouldn’t underrate the rest of the MTA system: the busses are all accessible and cover the same geography.
More to the point, there’s a parallel system that came out of the same lawsuit that found the subway system illegally inaccessible to people with mobility needs. Those people can use MTA-funded “Access-a-ride” service, which offers private, scheduled door-to-door transportation for the price of a subway ride. It’s a really expensive way to do it, but a remarkable lifeline for the people I know who, for example, need occasional transportation to and from medical appointments.
As someone who has a small child, and lives in a city with properly accessible public transportation (Tokyo), I can tell you that NYC's subway system fucking sucks for accessibility. They only have elevators every 2-3 stops, and often those elevators are broken. It's an embarrassment.
Sure, you can use buses, but the buses are way less frequent than the trains, and you're waiting for them out in the cold, heat, or rain, often with no cover and no bench. If there's service on a subway line, it's possible there's no accessible route to where you're going, which could require a few bus transfers as an alternative.
Access-a-ride is a great concept, but one that shouldn't need to exist, and doesn't cover the full spectrum of folks who rely on accessible transport.
I'm a huge proponent of public transportation, and haven't owned a car in 15 years, but let's not give NYC a pass on this. Every station should have at least one elevator, and should be fully accessible.
That’s 150 out of 472 for those curious— thanks for sharing details about access-a-ride, honestly seems like the right solution, at least until 2055 when supposedly 95% will be accessible.
10 or more years ago when Ludacris mode was added people said the same. But the answer was that we need these things so the rich shell out the money and Tesla can use it to fulfill the actual mission of yada yada yada.
I wonder how many still believe this. It’s like Tom Hanks in Big is in charge of both a car and rocket company. Sure it’s awesome but not what we need right now.
It's not self-evident what we need. We currently ended up with this whole free-market capitalism, which is super distorted of course, but still it kinda says that 'we should let people do whatever they want with their money unless they harm others'. "I want clean water. I want a stable climate. I want bees to survive." Yes, so we all. But we set up a system where people can vote with their wallets.
I don't think anyone voted to send their tax dollars to Elon Musk. He lives outside of capitalism and well into the territory of mafia oligarch. Even the SEC, which is supposed to ensure a level and fair investment playing field, simply doesn't enforce the rules on Musk's companies.
As long as oligarchs get their unrestricted factories, that's all that matters. If drinking water is poisoned, that is a price they are willing you to pay.
Did you say something similar when the Bugatti veyron was released? (Worlds first production car with 1000hp, and fastest) How about the Ferrari F80, or even some super yacht?
Even a $2000 folding phone is obscene when so many don’t have clean drinking water and access to healthcare.
Rich people have always had toys.
If you’re just getting annoyed now, you have not been paying attention, or you just hate Elon/Tesla.
lol. You’re mad because the person is “just getting mad now”. So by your logic they should have come out of the womb angry otherwise it is just unjustified anger? Lol you.
It’s more likely that the person doesn’t like Musk, and unless he’s solving world hunger they aren’t going to be happy. There’s a lot of legitimate reasons to not like Elon Musk, but “not helping the bees enough” isn’t a great take
It's fascinating how Americans think everyone is annoyed, just for having a different opinion. No where did I say I hated Elon or Tesla or that I was annoyed.
If you want all that you listed, you can't start clean water company, or stable climate company, or bee survival company, and offer all that you want. No?
Meanwhile, Elon is trying to buy state parks in Texas after bribing the governor to the tune of $150 million. Sad days ahead when fascists can openly flash their money around and buy influence on the cheap.
Tesla is actually a battery and electric car company that makes environmentally friendly cars and grid storage, and is probably towards the top of the list for companies who have reduced CO2 output in the world.
How the ad-based spyware actually worked (from the Citizen Lab and Confiant reports):
- It came in through the front door. Discover-Tech ran its own ad-buying platform and was listed as a "certified" vendor by Google and IAB Europe for six years. Nothing was hacked to get in. It bid in ad auctions like any other buyer.
- The ads looked harmless. Plain banners for games, AliExpress deals and an IP-lookup site. Hidden inside each one was a small script that quietly phoned home when the ad loaded.
- Everyone who saw an ad was profiled. The script collected device details, IP addresses and, on many sites, the publisher's own cookies, sometimes including logged-in session tokens. Cookie-syncing with other ad networks built a huge identity graph.
- Only chosen targets got the payload. A gatekeeper server checked each device's ad ID and IP. Most people got nothing back. A selected target got code that handed them off to spyware maker Candiru, and the code was served only once, which made it very hard for researchers to capture.
- The handoff was built to defeat inspection. Encrypted channels, rotating hosting, anti-bot checks and even a fake "Copyright Google" comment to fool human reviewers.
- It worked. At least 45 devices at Al Jazeera were targeted, and spyware was recovered from an infected machine. Its ads also appeared on networks belonging to NATO, the UN, the European Parliament, the ICC and various defence ministries.
- The scale was huge. Billions of bids and ads in nearly 200,000 apps and websites, including Duolingo, Viber, Yahoo Mail, dating apps and period trackers, yet almost no sign of real advertisers or revenue.
Agreed it's against the guidelines as written but the interpersonal exchange is no different than someone quoting a blog post (and then not linking to it, to be fair). Something like this doesn't feel strictly bad, assuming disclosure and a link to the chat, sources included.
Wait what, so there is no content disarm between companies making ads, and the publishers? They can literally push whatever they want? Wild.
Edit:
the TFA answers: "Advertisers or DSPs may run HTML and JavaScript code when an ad is shown to the user." Its wild! I thought the ads are sanitized, go through a CDR of sorts, and whatever javascript is permitted is authored by ad networks, not the buyers. Sheesh. Thats just RCE.
I was looking for this comment. I'm wondering the same. Are ads just iframes that could have js? Therefore this is basically a zero click js (is this the first?) that just happens to be distributed via ads?
> Wait what, so there is no content disarm between companies making ads, and the publishers? They can literally push whatever they want? Wild.
RTB (real-time bidding) does not incentivise publishers to care about what ads are actually being shown to individual users, so long as CPM is maximised.
You're going to be singing an entirely different tune when the "call to pray" is sounded through out your country, your women are dressed head to toe in burkas and your 9year old daughter is being married off to elder men.
Western and eastern cultures don't mix. I could care less what they do over there. But I do care what they do over here.
There is a difference between someone who comes to a country and assimilates into the cultures of that country and someone who comes into that country to destroy it.
Sorry bro, but most immigrants today are here to take over and destroy the culture of countries. They should be deported or jailed and I'm not going to idle by while my country is over taken. I'll gladly be called a racist if that is the case.
You are still in the minority whether you are called a racist or not.
The problem isn't muslim immigrants. The problem is the established powers and the billionaires. The invisible doctrine.
Divide and conquer is an established and very successfully used tool to get undereducated and gullible people on side to do keep them busy as useful idiots.
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” - Orwell, 1984
I'm not sure what you are trying to protect. Are you aware of British imperialism? Are you aware that we literally did what you are complaining about (but much worse) to half of the globe? You are proud of that?
I don't know where to start with you, but I bet you didn't do that well in school . Be honest. I'm right am I not?
Detect people, measure breathing and heart rate, track movement, and monitor rooms through walls, in the dark, with no cameras or wearables. Just physics.
I am of course impressed by the model and the robot. Great stuff,
But the downside is that won't we all just turn into the obese, stupid humans at the start of the WALL-E film?
Mindfulness teaches us that we can enjoy the washing up, the laundry, planting seeds, tending the garden. It connects us to something. Without this will we end up with a rise in mental health issues, because for one thing people will just end up on social media in the time they save.
Ironically, the people who can afford to have in-house help to handle things like cooking and folding clothes - the rich - also tend to be fitter and more active
Maybe if you can shave an hour every day from chores, you will actually have the energy to enjoy physical activities
I often wonder if they just made us do more washing, use more cups, travel further in the same time and get more expectations from our boss though.
I've got 2 kids. I'm always doing laundry and loading the dishwasher. How much of that is just higher expectations of cleanliness? Back when washing clothes involved going to the river all day, kids would get sewn into their clothes for winter. These days they have 5 outfit changes a day. I'm certain that my dishwasher means everyone just grabs a clean mug/glass/bowl rather than just rinsing a dirty one. I use a computer all day to get stuff done. But that just means my boss expects more stuff to be done. The baseline shifted.
A few hundred years ago people mostly lived near where they were born and didn't travel much. Now we get in our cars to drive a few hours to visit our family and friends. But they only moved far away because the car enabled it.
Obviously there are benefits - especially for those who find dirt upsetting - but have we actually changed the balance of leisure time very much?
This discourse reminds me of the handful of Christians who thought we needed Corn Flakes and uncomfortable clothing to stay chaste and that electricity made us stray from God.
Chill. Your brain is the product of the past. Reread that: your brain is anachronistic and outmoded.
We get to live in the future now. Count yourself lucky. You're one of the few that got to witness the birth of flight culminating in landing on the moon, except in this case your floppy disk became your personal shopper and stay-at-home Michelin star chef and part time driver.
It's okay to feel a bit of discomfort. It's hard to believe this is actually happening in our lifetimes, but it is! And that's so cool.
There is a lab in South Korea that claims to have discovered/developed superconductor that works at room (and higher) temperatures.
This kind of discovery would be worth a Nobel prize and would probably give us access to a whole range of new/improved technologies in the future.
All of this happened maybe 10 or so days ago, so other labs are trying to replicate the procedure to verify that the claims are legit, as I said, this would be a huge discovery so it has generated a lot of excitement everywhere in the world.
Now would be a great time to change the national anthem to something without God or royalty in it.
There is no place in modern society for a family who got all their wealth from wars and stealing it. Only to parade it around infront of millions of people in poverty.
Lets get rid of them. Start by turning the palaces into social housing.
Thanks for submitting this it was interesting to see. Is this an old project because the video example uses React Classes rather than functional components and hooks.
Since you already have an exporter that produces class-style React components, it seems like it would be nice to have the option of class or functional components. I've worked on projects with strictly class-based components, strictly functional components, and a mix of both. Would certainly be nice to be able to select between the two flavours of exported components, and would make it easier to sell the decision to use Aspect-designed components in more codebases!
(Our reasons for preferring one flavour or another usually depends on some combination of legacy-ness of the project (older -> prefer class components for consistency), complexity (simpler -> prefer functional components), and experience of the team (more junior -> prefer functional). YMMV, etc.)
I want clean water. I want a stable climate. I want bees to survive.