Same energy as "~~No~~ Elephants Allowed"
xlash123
joined 1 year ago
It likely depends. From a time efficiency perspective, doing both would be best. If money is the bottleneck, then it's probably best to find more money (tax the rich please?) or make budget adjustments so that time is the bottleneck instead (it is a climate emergency after all). I've heard that it is cheaper to maintain compact and mixed-use zoning areas over the classic strip mall with parking lots common across North America, and that could be enough for cities to see reorganizing the infrastructure as an investment over paying increasing maintenance costs. Of course that's a big up front cost, but it over time it would be cheaper.
It seems like we do disagree on the exact impact both options have, which could help in deciding the priority. I don't have any data to prove either side on this one, but if you know of any sources on that, I would love to see it.
Once we're fully electrified, then we can begin transitioning to mass transit options.
This is the biggest qualm I have. It's not an either or. We can have more EVs and better transit too, so we can and should push for both at the same time. They both solve climate problems, and transit also gives better quality of life, in my opinion.
Additionally, I believe that the best way towards a greener world is to make the green option the easiest option for people. Buying an EV is very expensive for an individual, adding friction to the decision to purchase and alienating certain economic classes. If we were to put public funds towards good transit options instead of repairing the endless sprawl of roads, then we would see mass adoption of those transit options in favor of both ICEs and EVs, as it would be seen as viable competition to car ownership.
Ultimately, it's about finding the right balance. That was my biggest issue with the White House statement. I agree that the climate emergency is a major concern, and EVs might be quicker to adopt (I have concerns about the accuracy of the claim though). But we can and should work in parallel. The statement put so much focus on EVs, when I really think that better mass transit options should have at least an equal focus.
This is absolutely true, and it's not limited to parking tickets. I was getting groceries and I was asked to pay. I knew this was just a trick to get me to enter contract, so I denied the contract (yes, I signed at a 45.0 degree angle) and left with my groceries for free.
The police did unlawfully arrest me though, so I am seeking a civil rights lawyer.
The truth is (at least in the USA), a vast majority of people who own SUVs don't really need an SUV. This video explains it a lot better than I ever could: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
I would bet that Parisians saw the hell that the USA went through with absurdly large cars and car dependency and wish to prevent that from happening to their city, which this additional fee would help disincentivize.
If you are open to learning more, I highly suggest looking into Strong Towns, which this video series by the same creator does a great job of summarizing: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa
It shows the issues that many cities put themselves in by depending on cars and proposes ways we can improve our cities for the benefit of everyone (especially the disabled).
If you have the time (35 min), this video does a great job of explaining the distinction.
If you have even more time, I recommending looking into Strong Towns, of which the same creator summarized in this series of videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa
This channel opened my eyes to the extremely terrible world of car dependency that we live in. I will warn you that once you know this, you will never see the world the same way again, but it's extremely important that we know about this problems so that we can push our governments to fix them.
I really dislike the majority of the focus of this article on just getting more EVs. While electrification is important, it doesn't really solve any of the current transportation issues and tries to position itself as the climate fixer. Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate, but what is even better is competent public transit. EVs transport a fraction of people that trains, trams, and busses can, which makes them much less energy efficient. Remember that electricity is still generated in lots of places using non-renewable resources, and the manufacturing of batteries also contributes a significant amount of carbon emissions. Given how big cars are and how little people they tend to transport, you start to see how extremely inefficient they are. Removing cars (more specifically, the dependence on cars) is always better than replacing them one for one.
The real focus should be on building more public transportation options to compete with cars, and petitioning local government to make changes to remove car-centric zoning laws and allow for mixed-use zoning, which is greener, cheaper to maintain, and brings in more city revenue than large roads and parking lots.
I'd love to see a bigger focus on creating better public mass transit systems instead of focusing on producing more oil for cars. Cheaper gas addresses the symptom, not the cause.
Rust borrows a lot of it's design from functional programming languages like Haskell, which has its good and bad. You could also choose to implement this behavior iteratively like typical C programs, but that tends to be ugly in other ways.
Personally, I've grown fond of the functional style. You see it in other places too, like the higher order functions in JavaScript. What's good about them in Rust is you still get amazing performance due to zero-cost abstraction. Trying to implement it yourself would likely be slower, so use them any chance you get.
C is just crazy. You accidentally forget to put the bounds in a sorting function, and now you are root.
I'm just curious, what's your reason or preference for using an alternate init system, if you don't mind?