reddit General

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
DumbDude42 said:
might be fuel efficient and space efficient, but not time efficient. driving from A to B with your own car is generally faster than walking to a bus stop, waiting for the bus, taking the bus to another stop, then walking to your destination. it wastes a significant amount of time out of your day, multiply that by the full 70 people and you end up wasting a lot of man-hours. and since time is money, generally you'll end up losing value by taking the bus compared to driving a car.

this does not apply to every situation, when you look at long distance travel for example a high speed train will often be more time efficient than going by car. but for things like daily commute between suburbs and inner cities the time balance is usualy strongly in favor of cars.
Click to expand...
Consider that in order to cars to work as a mass transport mode, you have to spend a ton of space for parking and fast roads. This makes your destinations physically slip further and further away as population grows. Congestion is the icing on the shit cake, as you don’t even get there fast. The only way to keep things nice and working is to go ultra NIMBY. Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone, as it will make traffic worse.

Walking and public transport don’t have this problem. There’s no need for oceans of parking or massive channels of traffic. Having everything you need close by saves you more time than you can imagine.

You may have noticed that it’s terrible to drive in a place that’s good for walking around and vice versa.
 
chiobu said:
She's a paid reddit staff with a history of siding with the degenerate trannies and getting subs ranging from r/GenderCritical to r/2Balkan4u banned, so many would love to see her fall and in this instance she was recorded blatantly abusing her privileges solely acting on her own personal agenda.

Deets here: https://rentry.co/marsey
Click to expand...
Yeah but what does it have to do with troons?
 
anon4890201 said:
Yeah but what does it have to do with troons?
Click to expand...
The picture of the cat that people were drawing was placed on part of the trans flag.

I'm still not clear if the cat is suppose to represent something more than just a mascot for a website or what. Whatever the case, I suspect the sole reason it got attention for u/Chtorrr (Cassidy Good) is because of where it came from.
 
Tealeaf said:
Consider that in order to cars to work as a mass transport mode, you have to spend a ton of space for parking and fast roads. This makes your destinations physically slip further and further away as population grows. Congestion is the icing on the shit cake, as you don’t even get there fast. The only way to keep things nice and working is to go ultra NIMBY. Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone, as it will make traffic worse.

Walking and public transport don’t have this problem. There’s no need for oceans of parking or massive channels of traffic. Having everything you need close by saves you more time than you can imagine.

You may have noticed that it’s terrible to drive in a place that’s good for walking around and vice versa.
Click to expand...
it's not just the fact that infrastructure built around cars is naturally less dense than infrastructure built for public transportation, but that low density population centers are poor choices for public transportation. there's a chicken-egg aspect to this problem that most people don't seem to understand and it's that there's basically no way to make urban sprawl well suited for a public transportation paradigm without fundamentally redesigning and rebuilding most urban design and building code around making everything like 3x more dense.

in places where land is cheap nobody builds vertically and consolidates space because it's orders of magnitude more expensive than just buying land somewhere else and building a new building. the city i live in has a surprisingly functional bus system but it's simply not worth using because the bus will take you 4x longer to get you to your destination, especially since the density of services and locations is so low compared to somewhere that has had Hotelling's law factor into zoning decisions. that means the throughput of the public transport is piss poor despite its theoretical high maximum and it ends up just increasing congestion in high traffic situations because now there's a bus with three people on it that could have just been two cars. there is a complex set of factors at play to this problem beyond 'more people means less cars' because there's more or less a giant gap in efficiency that i think a lot of people in high density population centers like europe and the coastal areas legitimately do not understand about midwestern america
 
Tealeaf said:
Consider that in order to cars to work as a mass transport mode, you have to spend a ton of space for parking and fast roads. This makes your destinations physically slip further and further away as population grows. Congestion is the icing on the shit cake, as you don’t even get there fast. The only way to keep things nice and working is to go ultra NIMBY. Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone, as it will make traffic worse.

Walking and public transport don’t have this problem. There’s no need for oceans of parking or massive channels of traffic. Having everything you need close by saves you more time than you can imagine.

You may have noticed that it’s terrible to drive in a place that’s good for walking around and vice versa.
Click to expand...
In a walkable community, someone might be able to walk 10 minutes to the grocery store. Because they can’t buy more than they can carry, they must go every day. So they spend 10*2*7=140 minutes a week traveling to and from the grocery store. Someone with a car spends 10 minutes driving to and from the store, but they do it once a week because they can carry a week’s groceries at once, so they only spend 10*2*1 = 20 minutes a week traveling to and from the store, a savings of two hours per week over the walker. Now this is contrived and both people could go more or less frequently, but mathematically, it is almost always more efficient to make fewer larger trips than more smaller ones.
 
Tabris999 said:
It's not about walking/riding bikes, it's about safe and efficient public transportation. See picrel:

View attachment 3156321
70 people on a bus vs 70 people, each in their own cars.
Click to expand...
I mean you're right, but I don't like public transportation, it's always cramped in there, but an argument could be made that people who buy a car with 4 seats while hey aren't married and have no kids are bloody idiots.
 
I've seen "same food" for autists, because the
Tealeaf said:
You may have noticed that it’s terrible to drive in a place that’s good for walking around and vice versa.
Click to expand...
I live in a very walkable place but it still requires significantly more time to get anywhere on foot or transit than driving. also, in order to be walkable a place has to be dense. And most people don’t want to raise a family in a sky box.
 
Hyacinth Bucket (Bouquet) said:
I've seen "same food" for autists, because the

I live in a very walkable place but it still requires significantly more time to get anywhere on foot or transit than driving. also, in order to be walkable a place has to be dense. And most people don’t want to raise a family in a sky box.
Click to expand...
Good for walking is a notch above walkable. Walkable means you can walk and you don’t necessarily hate it. It’s not the comedy-tier streets you can find in America where you have no sidewalks, no crossings and high speed vehicle traffic everywhere. You have the basics. You can walk around and not die. There might even be some public and commercial services you can access by foot. The bar is not high.

The sufficiently high density that brings you almost everything you could possibly want within a stone’s throw is far too dense that driving would be anything more than a chore. There’s just too many pedestrians going in every direction, the streets are too narrow and cramped, there‘s dead ends turning into pedestrian streets and one way systems that make no sense, there’s too little parking and it’s stuffed inconveniently in annoying garages that cost too much. But it’s not meant for driving, so none of that matters.
 
Tealeaf said:
The sufficiently high density that brings you almost everything you could possibly want within a stone’s throw is far too dense that driving would be anything more than a chore. There’s just too many pedestrians going in every direction, the streets are too narrow and cramped, there‘s dead ends turning into pedestrian streets and one way systems that make no sense, there’s too little parking and it’s stuffed inconveniently in annoying garages that cost too much. But it’s not meant for driving, so none of that matters.
Click to expand...
It’s got a walkable score in the nineties. Still faster to drive. What you’re talking about sounds like European ancient cities; post car cities try not to develop them to be deliberately annoying.
 
Kiwi & Cow said:
First, an obsession over trains, then a hate boner for cars.
Click to expand...
Auto trains must really fuck with their cross-wired brains.

ETA:
Also, reddit appears to have banned the terms "orc" and "ork" site-wide under penalty of automated, instant permaban (not even shadowban):
JambledUpWords said:
View attachment 3157726View attachment 3157725
Click to expand...
(original post) (unddit -- it reports "removed comments: 138/795 (17.4%), deleted comments: 18/795 (2.3%)" as of this writing ... lol)
 
Last edited:
SaidTheSpider said:
"Safe foods" in regards to autism or sensory processing disorder are foods that don't trigger sensory overload or meltdowns. It's not a made up concept, but anyone who is high-functioning enough to attention whore online is probably also high-functioning enough to quit being so picky and eat their goddamn vegetables.
Click to expand...
I have never heard the term used for autism either, and I had plenty fellow autist friends. Just seems like more self-diagnoser bullshit to prove to others how autistic they are. If I don't like a texture, I don't eat it. I don't make a big reddit display about it.
 
r/PoliticalHumor trying to be funny part 483.

unfunnycomedy.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom