So I read through the article, and it seems like this guy has a lot of selection bias. He makes the claim that nothing is done about right-wing protesters, but completely ignores that the J6 trials happened, and right-wing extremists do actually face charges for violent or criminal acts.

He also spends more time on that than elaborating on his claim that “inequality demands oppression” or talking about that in greater analytical detail.

This just seems like ragebait.

The E195 is a bit too small for mainline use, though a good aircraft otherwise. The others however I’m not sure are ready for the prime time.

The Comac has potential, it’s a completely new aircraft developed for the Chinese domestic market, I don’t know if it will be sold in the west though. One issue is that the aircraft market doesn’t lend itself to new players. Planes typically last 30 years give or take, so taking on a new type from an unproven manufacturer is a big risk. It could, however, be successful in the long term.

Irkut is majority owned by the Russian government, and given the war, is likely going to have issues. It has flown, but now they have to move to entirely homegrown parts, which will likely make the aircraft completely shit.

Speaking of, the Tupolev Tu-204. It is still in production, and since the war started it has begun to ramp up again. Unfortunately it still has significant problems. For an aircraft built today, it still uses a three person cockpit crew, and is very underpowered. It also has had nearly no changes since its introduction in 1989, and is way behind pretty much any aircraft of its size.

It’s worth considering how much room there is in the airliner market for more competitors. Since aircraft require a huge amount of R&D, you have to sell a lot of them to break even. So if there’s too many manufacturers vying for a finite market, it gets hard to find any RoI. This has happened a lot historically, it’s like streaming services except you can’t actually get anyone to buy duplicates and very rarely will anyone split their orders.

One thing the article doesn’t make super clear to me is if that figure includes investment funds and whatnot, and to what degree. It sounds like it might but elaborated very little beyond a vague statistic.

Momentum. Plenty of communities on a variety of subjects use twitter as their primary forum, and once something is standard, it’s difficult to change. In my (limited) twitter experience it’s also not too difficult to isolate yourself from a lot of the shit and just follow people who you’re interested in.

It’s still fit for purpose for specific communities of people. And moving to a new platform can cause a lot of problems - tell me with a straight face that Lemmy has reached the same levels of engagement, variety, and diversity that Reddit had.

They pollute more than you think, and using concrete is very rare in certain parts of the world. Outside of elevated roads I’ve never seen in used in my area or any part of the northern US.

I must say, you’re the first person I’ve seen to cite ChatGPT as a source.

I literally just told you two things that make them more dangerous, what makes them safer?

I don’t fully understand why SUVs are more profitable. What makes them worth more than a minivan or wagon for instance. I know premium versions of both those vehicle types exist (actually I’m pretty sure some of the only new wagons you can buy today are from premium German brands.)

We would also have to get rid of tires to do that, tires pollute a lot. And roads too, heavier vehicles wear out roads faster, and asphalt requires petroleum products to produce.

I’d wager most people have been in one considering how common they are, doesn’t make them any less terrible. Size is definitely a problem, they are very space inefficient, and quite dangerous. The center of gravity is very high, and because the front end is high up, anyone hit by it is more likely to end up under the vehicle. The solution is to lower them down to make them safer, and replace them with safer and more efficient vehicles like station wagons and minivans.

Yeah that one’s gonna cost them a lot down the road. They might need state assistance to buy that thing out.

Aviation has always been reactionary. Change comes from finding the cause of accidents, and unfortunately it’s somewhat difficult to do until after that type of accident happens. In the 60s and 70s it was common for passenger jets to just crash in to mountains when there was nothing wrong with them. We implemented better navigational technology, and warning systems that detect obstacles in the plane’s path to prevent this from happening.

Cincinnati?

That’s the commonly cited example among rail advocates. Yeah Ohio rail currently sucks, but the proposals I’ve seen for intercity rail seem quite robust. That said, you guys made a huge blunder selling that railroad.

Nicely done, let’s keep going.

Edit: Building works.

It’s not profitable, it just lowers the operating ratio, which is what railroads (quite stupidly) judge their productivity on.

Operating ratio =/= more money despite what they think.

The core principal here is open access, where the government owns and maintains the infrastructure, and anyone can make use of capacity on it provided they comply with regulations concerning safety and crew certification. They pay fees to the government agency responsible for the infrastructure to help cover its costs. This is how highways and air infrastructure works in the US, and state-owned rail infrastructure is required to be open access under EU law.

So far it seems to have been successful, state-owned rail operators have historically been the jack of all trades, but that doesn’t always help when people want to travel to odd destinations or at odd times. Open access improves that significant and has been instrumental in helping the EU begin to transition away from air travel.

And the fucking dangerous high front which is completely unnecessary on an electric car, why is it there. Not even the TESLA FUCKING CYBERTRUCK pulls that shit, say what you will about Tesla, but they understand how the differences between gas and electric cars can be taken advantage of.

Friendly reminder that Uber makes use of public infrastructure to do its thing.

As do all the airlines.

Yeah I feel like the upvote button is ignored by these people, it may be more affected. Personally I was never particularly bothered by it, but it doesn’t really warrant a comment.

I like constructive discussion, please feel free to add your own thoughts, but don’t say you agree and leave us hanging.

This seems rather conspiratorial in my opinion, though it’s probably true in a few cases, I doubt it’s the majority. I think a lot of the pushback is from older people who are resistant to the idea for a variety of reasons, and they also happen to be more civically active in a number of places.

I see far more evidence do the latter than the former.