Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

PeriodicallyPedantic

@ PeriodicallyPedantic @lemmy.ca

Posts
6
Comments
1063
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • For space elevators, to the best of my knowledge, there is no known material that can withstand the forces involved. Not even CFNTs.

    For wormholes, we're getting so deep into speculation that the conversation doesn't even really matter.

  • That's how you get to cars.

    Add more trains. The trains now need to seat fewer people so make them smaller. Maybe 2-7 people per train.Most routes aren't needed at any given time, so you might as well only run the train when someone needs it.Rather than keeping the unused trains in a central depot, keep them at the departure pointsWe can't staff all these trains, and if the departure points are peoples' homes, then let's have the people themselves drive itThe network of destinations requires a TON of rail switches, and coordinating that is a complicated. Better to use a technology that doesn't require switches, like wheels on pavement.

    Boom, cars.

    So it really depends on what you're optimizing for.

  • The point I was trying to make was that tech bros are almost certainly trying to optimize for convenience, because they live in a bubble where thats what's important to them (or that's what has the highest margins).

  • As he said, rail is cheaper to maintain than roads. So the roads you replace with rail result in a net reduction of maintenance costs

  • We had good nationwide rail, and instead of expanding it, we dug it up and replaced it with nationwide roads.

    So let's do it again, dig up the roads and replace it with rail.

    Trains can be faster, safer, cleaner, and more comfortable. We can still have roads for the last mile, but trains for Intercity and interstate.

  • The problem is "perfection" looks different to different people.

    If you're optimizing for efficiency, then you're absolutely correct. If you're optimizing for convenience then shit like personal taxi drones is probably gonna be better.

  • I mean, currently both space elevators and wormholes (as transportation) seem physically impossible.

    If we're not sticking to the realm of our current understanding of physics, then that opens the doors for techbros too, because we're in the realm of speculative fiction and things can be however we say they are.

  • I'm part of the problem, because I keep replying and giving you an audience, so consider this my last reply.

    When someone is raising an issue, and you're considering if you want to expand or generalize the topic, ask yourself "will the person with the issue benefit from what I'm about to say?"If they wont, and they're not hurting anyone, then maybe stfu, especially if you inhabit a position of power, in society, relative to them. If it's still important to you, then go start another conversation elsewhere.

    In this case, they won't, and you probably do, and you insisted on speaking up here anyways, which makes you just like all the dudes trying to make this about themselves. You do not pass the vibe check.

  • You just can't help yourself

  • True.

    But now more of the hurdles will be removed. Gotta make that wealth extraction more efficient 📈🥴Can't let those poor and middle class people hold onto any of their money.

  • He didn't say he preferred trump, he said the Democrats are useless.

    Which they are; they couldn't defeat an orange windbag with transparent aspirations of autocracy.

  • Even now, you're trying to derail the conversation, which is about how women have to deal with this bullshit all the time online, and make it about a topic you care about.

    You don't need to participate, if this isn't the subject that you want to talk about.

  • This isn't a universal complaint about the frustration of whataboutism.

    This is a specific complaint about how any time women try to talk about women's issues in a forum that may contain men, those men engage in disingenuous whataboutism.

    The men replying are almost never showing support, they're minimizing the issue, or they're trying to co-opt the thread.

    It doesn't need to be a uniquely woman's issue for it to be a predominantly women's issue. And it doesn't need to be a predominantly woman's issue for women to want to talk about it from a woman's perspective without men making it about them.

  • As someone with a loud car, I can confirm

  • The downvotes are insane when you're demonstrably right.

  • I don't think I've ever seen the opposite, where the dude is holding a reasonable opinion or complaint.

    Meanwhile this comment section is an example of the comic itself

  • I feel like that's a pretty gross misrepresentation of the issue.

    The people in the comic (and in the comments here) are often trying to minimize the issue on which she is speaking, or co-opt the conversation for their own issues (typically forcing her and the original issue to the sidelines). They're not adding context or having a discussion in good faith.

  • The comic is about how when people speak online online about women's issues, dudes keep trying to make it about dudes.

    The comic itself is someone talking online about women's issues, and the comments are all men trying to make it about them.

    It's remarkably similar.

  • You're right, and we all know who downvoted you