top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 128 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is this the hyperloop they talk about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I feel like it would be much more effort to tame a flying creature or magic, with the latter often being displayed as a life-long commitment.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And it would be especially hard to feed those things. Can you imagine how much a magical creature eats? They use a lot of energy. Much more than a horse would normally

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, you can put horses on any pasture and they will happily graze on whatever weed grows there. Gryphons (just one example of a popular fantasy mount) should be carnivorous. So how many cows do you need to feed that thing before it will fly someone safely across the countryside, without deciding that this someone looks awfully tasty?

    Big flying mounts should be horribly expensive to maintain. Only the most wealthy nobles and wizards who can literally conjure money should be able to pay for them.

    Personally I always have to suspend a lot of my disbelief whenever dragon mounts are being mentioned in fantasy books and there is absolutely no explanations how these creatures are being fed. Usually the topic is quietly sidelined or simply dismissed with "something something magic".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yahtzee's book Will Save the Galaxy for Food actually covers this, in a sci-fi way. In the future, all transportation is done via Quantum Tunnelling, so guess what job suddenly became obsolete? Space pilots. Space pilots now only exist because people have nostalgia for the old days, reducing pilots to little more than tour guides and adventure holidays.

    It's like in those MMOs where you can teleport basically anywhere, but you still have mounts and yes you can travel from one end of the map to the other on your horse, admiring the scenery, or you could just click the coordinates someone pasted into the chat to get to the world boss you're supposed to kill for the most optimum play... Lookin' at you, Guild Wars 2!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    It’s like in those MMOs where you can teleport basically anywhere, but you still have mounts

    Typically, you can't teleport somewhere you haven't already visited in these games. So the horse lets you travel beyond your historical borders, while teleportation allows you to reconvene with friends at a prior explored location.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    It takes time to come to the realization that a lot of what we do is inefficient because that's just what people are used to doing. Some towns survive solely due to coal mining, and they see it as an existential threat if it were shut down. Nuclear power also takes very knowledgeable individuals, years of planning, and many resources to get started. Coal is cheap, dirty, and primitive.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Eh...a lot of what we do is inefficient because that makes the most money for people who already have too much money.

    Nuclear was kneecapped by the fossil fuel industry. They're still fighting against renewables.

    We're going to destroy the planet so that the rich get richer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -32 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Nuclear also isn‘t even a good energy source. Way too expensive and the waste is a problem for millenia. Renewables + hydrogen/battery/mechanical energy conservation is simply superior. Fusion would be cool too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Nuclear is a great energy source. My state (Illinois) generates over half of all its energy from nuclear. France is a great example of a country that maximizes the potential of nuclear energy. The waste is not a problem if it's stored properly. The much bigger problem are carbon/methane emissions which are fucking our climate right now. Also, nuclear waste can be reprocessed to make it less volatile and radiotoxic, but that requires an advanced application of technology.

    Batteries and solar absolutely yes, we need to be scaling up battery technology as fast as possible, particularly sodium-ion batteries for static energy storage from solar power. The biggest problems with wind/solar is the actual storage of the energy. No wind? No power. No sun? No power. That's why you need batteries, and battery technology has only gotten good enough in the past couple years.

    Scaling up hydrogen is very difficult, it's extremely volatile, and can realistically only be used in large scale power plants because transporting hydrogen is extremely expensive. Fusion could be good, but it's still being worked on, and who knows how long it'll really take for us to have a practical implementation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Yes battery + solar seem to have gotten good enough in recent years. So much so that it seems they are more cost effective than nuclear for newly build systems. Nuclear even seems to be the most expensive one. Link

  • source
  • parent
  • We have an increasing number of windmills here. The wind never drops below 15mph (there are a few airfields taking advantage of that) so like, the one time I remember the wind stopping there was a tornado 30 miles away. Ages ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    France only pushed for nuclear, because they need an excuse for the costs of their nukes and nuclear submarines. The disadvantages of high cost and nuclear waste remain.

    if it's stored properly

    For millennia, which we can't do yet.

    nuclear waste can be reprocessed to make it less volatile and radiotoxic

    Which needs energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 23 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    If it's such a non issue, how come we still don't have a single long term storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in the world? After more than 70 years of nuclear energy production.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yeah, that must be the reason why the United States pay half a billion dollars of tax payer money each year to the utility companys to compensate their failure in finding a suitable storage location.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    I totally agree with you, especially in the second part where you're talking about the US being a weird ass country full of wackjobs.

    But that doesn't mean that we in the other countries aren't a bunch of wackjobs either. We might not be as totally wack as you are right now, but that's just a matter of past or future. Just so you know: We already found the worst possible solution, so you don't have to find it for yourself, you can learn from us and choose another path.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Which is still not operational, just like the dozens of other potential storages, we started building just to find out last minute that they are not suitable. Or even better, those we started using just to find out they were not suitable to begin with later. I'm curious to read how many billions it will cost to retreive the waste from Onkalo in 30 years when we've learnt that it's also not safe for the next million years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    "not operational" as in "construction is not complete", sure, but they were able to start testing at that facility in 2024, and it will be complete and ready for full operational use in 2026. Just because other storage facilities didn't work out in the past doesn't mean new ones are doomed as well. This project has been in development for a few decades now, and they're learning from all those previous mistakes.

    Edit: where in the Yucca Mountain article does it say it's "not a suitable site", as you imply? I'm reading the exact opposite in multiple places, and it seems like the halt of operations/construction there was due to political pressure and local sentiment, not because of any safety risks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago*

    Did you even read my comment? There already are ways to efficiently store electricity generated by solar and wind turbines. These methods use conservation of movement, gravity or hydrogen made through electrolysis to flatten out the fluctuations in sun and wind availability. That and nuclear fusion is the future, coal AND nuclear are outdated and we should get away from them as quickly as possible. No new nuclear power plants and no coal mining anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    You know I just realized I need to get a quick deployment and dedeployment windsurfing parachute to propel my bicycle when the wind is, well, normal here.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    quick deployment

    Trivial

    and dedeployment

    Physically impossible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    You could attach the parachute lines to electric motors that could quickly reel the parachute back in.

    And make the parachute semi-rigid like an umbrella so that it folds in a predictable and reversible way.

    And make the anchor point where the lines attach to the motorcycle moveable. When it's deployed, the anchor point sits at the front of the bike so the chute and lines can pull the bike forward from the front. As the chute is getting close to being fully reeled in, the anchor point swings out on an arm a couple feet to the side of the bike and it gets several feet higher so that the lines and the chute are coming in from directly overhead rather than blocking the riders view.

    These are just my preliminary ideas. Of course the engineering team at GM or Toyota or whoever buys this idea off me will likely want to tighten it up a bit to take into account various locale specific regulations and practical manufacturing considerations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    shit it looks like i've got all the hardware except the sail (my trike has a vertical(ish) post about the same angle we could totally pop a sail mount in or on. and i'm kind of turning my bike into a papier mache pirate frigate for halloween 2026, so this would just, uh, yeah it'd be great.

    my wife blames you. i haven't told her yet, but she blames you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    has anon considered, that maybe, horses are just extremely fucking cool, and that is why?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 90 points 1 year ago (43 children)

    > setting has bikes and trains

    > still using cars as main form of transportation

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Cars are much more advanced tech than bikes. Hell we have partly self driving electric cars now. That's some sci-fi shit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's why I can't understand how some bikes can cost as much as a small used car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And some watches cost far more than both.

    Price isn't always perfectly aligned with complexity or utility 🤷‍♀️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, some watches, but you can buy perfectly competent watches for very low prices.

    You can't buy a perfectly competent electric bike for a low price, at least not where I am.

  • source
  • parent
  • I basically have a teensy weak motorcycle that I can "fuel up" at home or bring a spare battery for long rides. I'm bothered the used cars are so expensive, not the bike

    I also ain't looking at $12k frames, (mine was $700) so it's got that going for it too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    Hold on, let me just load up the family onto my bicycle and ride the 15 miles to the grocery store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    You know that your family can ride too? In cities which aren't car-centric hell-holes, it's normal for kids of very young ages (6-8 years old) to walk/bike everywhere on their own. It also tends to help a lot with their independence and development.

    Also, if you build your cities correctly, your grocery store will be a <3 minute walk. Your spouse or kids can just walk there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    If, if, if... That's not how the real world works

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    This is precisely how the real world works, unless you live in under a dictatorship of capital so brazen they have even taken the concept of a livable city away from you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    This is precisely how parts of the real world work, but guess what? There's a fuck ton of places that are not like that, so why just pretend that isn't the case?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I mean, this is the premise of the original comment here. That there still are backwards-ass places where people have to own a car and drive, when much better forms of transportation exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Can this argument just disappear from discourse? People don't always drive around with their partner, dog and 2.5 kids AND groceries AND spare tires AND grandparents.

    The majority of people in car-centric areas use their car only to haul around themselves, which could be done with public transport or bikes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    That, and the nearest grocery store being 15 miles (25 km) away is highly unusual even by US standards. In the US alone, over 80% of people live in what the Census Bureau calls a city, defined as "encompass[ing] at least 2,000 housing units or hav[ing] a population of at least 5,000 people." The fact that someone chooses to live in bumfuck nowhere shouldn't mean that the other people who live in a town with population > 5 shouldn't get to have safe, affordable, well-kept walking/micromobility/public transit infrastructure.

    People don't suddenly stop driving cars when not-cars becomes the predominant form of transportation. Like I said, "main form of transportation". That cars are by far the main form is the problem because, among other huge problems, it induces reliance on cars and creates expensive, unmaintainable sprawl that makes other forms of transit completely impractical. Hell, even bumfuck nowhere towns used to have passenger rail that came through them before the tracks were ripped out. I think people who worry that good not-car infrastructure will destroy their ability to drive are projecting, because in reality, it's always been car infrastructure that eats up everything else around it, not vice-versa.

    "What do you mean 'boats shouldn't be the primary form of transportation'? Did you ever consider that I chose to live on an island off the coast of Michigan??"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Legit. If my wife wants to come on a trip I'm driving on, she can hop on her bike. The two of our bikes together cost a fifth what our car cost, and the "fuel" expenses are negligible with solar.

    Honestly thinking of a way to solar recharge the bikes while we're camping. Like, an umbrella to shade the battery, with a solar panel on top and an extension cord up connect the battery under the damn thing. Maybe solar panels on the bike too and some active cooling for the batteries idk

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I leave the 8-story building (with an elevator), walk 5-10 minutes (one road crossing with lights), buy groceries, in 30 minutes I'm back home.

    Something is wrong with that murrka thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most Americans are used to very spread out cities. It causes a lot of problems with groceries since you have to make far fewer grocery trips, which then means fresh foods are rare. Probably a huge contributor to America's obesity problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Yeah many of our cities in statesia have tiny urban centers and sprawling suburbs.

    There's a "town" suburb of a nearby city that has the waterfront zoned for multi-use property. Businesses (including my favorite restaurant ever) are on the first floor, residences on the second. I really want to rent/buy the apartment above my favorite restaurant and eat there every day, but the restaurant owner's daughter lives there right now. It's almost ideal for a walkable community

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The closest grocery store is literally in the same building I currently live in. It takes me ~30 seconds from my apartment door to grocery store door.. This (<3 mins to the nearest grocery store) is the norm in a lot of places.

    When I lived in my own house in the woods (literally no neighbors), I could bike ~10 minutes to the nearest small farmer's shop, or ~20 minutes and get to a bigger grocery store. The fact that you must drive to buy groceries is, frankly, insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    When I lived in my own house in the woods (literally no neighbors), I could bike ~10 minutes to the nearest small farmer’s shop, or ~20 minutes and get to a bigger grocery store. The fact that you must drive to buy groceries is, frankly, insane.

    I live in Russia, dachas are common enough here (mostly summertime and not heated houses on small plots of land, used for gardening and sometimes growing food). So, we have one. When I'm there, I only bike for fun. I can literally walk to the neighboring town with a cinema and a mall and plenty of conveniences in 40 minutes on foot. I mean, people who have cars do drive to that kind of distances, but it's not necessary. It's the kind of place where in like 1 in 20 houses people live most of the time. And still.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Step one: leave the family (especially toddlers and infants) at home with a trusted caretaker or dog. Step two, ride about 15mph so you don't drain the battery too fast. Step three, wake up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Some people are completely unable to understand that not everybody lives in a city with everything on their doorstep, some people have children, and some people need to be able to transport more than a few small items at a time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Therefore the majority that do live in a city must use cars too?

    No one is coming to your rural community to build a bike lane. These discussions are never about the rural folk. Y'all are going to be left alone. Bikes and transit don't make sense in low-density rural areas

    Now please stop fighting the change the rest of us want in our cities

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Big city people: Boy, it'd sure be nice if there were fewer cars in the center of this big city right here, and more people would use the public infrastructure already at their disposal.

    Country people: Some people don't live in cities, therefore this statement is also about me! There tryin ta tek muh cur!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Trains and bikes are much more inconvenient. Though bikes are good for close proximity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There are bikes that have motors, it helps reach further away locations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I find the opposite to be true. Taking a train is so much more convenient. Don't have to find a place to park, don't have to do any work to get there. Just sit down and wait

    Bikes are nice because I don't have to worry about traffic much, and generally parking isn't an issue

    Cars are really inconvenient. You have a gigantic vehicle that you have to navigate around many other vehicles, then find a parking spot, usually not close to where you're actually going

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Finding a place to park a car is inconvenient, but locking up a bike somewhere isn't?

    And you must live within walking distance of a train.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    And you must live within walking distance of a train.

    Or they just take a bus? It's crazy to think about, but not all buses are US and Canadian ones that come every hour and take two hours and five connections to get you to the station.

    Also, locking up a bike is comparatively very easy to parking a car. The only reason car parking is often easy in North American cities is because of ridiculous, overinflated parking minimums that subsidize car ownership through free storage for giant metal boxes, blanket the landscape in otherwise-useless asphalt, and vastly increase the distances between locations for the people not using cars (including from, say, your house to the train station).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›