The two cents are not literally monetary - your opinion is literally the two cents. You're contributing your understanding to the shared pot of understanding and that's represented by putting money into the pot, showing you have skin in the game. It's contributing to a larger body of knowledge by putting your small piece in - the phrases you suggest don't have that context behind them and in my opinion are worse for it. The beauty of the phrase is because the two cents are your opinion, everyone has enough, because everyone can have an opinion.
The lens through which you're analyzing the phrase is coloring how you see it negatively, and the one I'm using is doing the opposite. There is no need to change the phrase, just how it's viewed, I think.
Walk? Waymo already stops at crosswalks (marked or unmarked) if a pedestrian looks like they are crossing or starting to cross. That is more than I can say for human drivers. I’m confused why you don’t think this is just a win for pedestrians given how messed up things are now.
One just came out. Only one on the market I know of. It's called the Unihertz Titan 2, and I'm typing this comment on one. It's got a blackberry style keyboard and runs pretty close to stock android. I recommend swapping their default keyboard out with swiftkey, though the default one isn't terrible - swiftkey just gives me a few conveniences like emoji suggestions. It has play services, so it works.
That's not a red flag, almost all news sites are like that now, unfortunately. It's due to the ad revenue model, they don't want you to click away. Pick some reputable news sources you can think of and see if they link their primary sources - it won't be many.
I can believe it, though I believe it to be untrue. SJW is not a neutral term. In the same way that the word "woke" has been corrupted, SJW now almost exclusively refers to dyed-hair screaming women making mountains out of molehills to try to strongarm people into policing things they don't like. It did not used to mean that, but it is now used primarily pejoratively, not descriptively, like "woke".
Uncle Tom's cabin actually should be banned based on their rules, but not because of its depiction of slavery, for the ending, where Uncle Tom refuses to rat out the slave women he helped escape and in turn is brutally whipped to death, whilst forgiving those who are whipping him. The violence and gore in the ending is enough regardless of the rest of the book.
Aside: If you've never read it, the depiction of that book in media has been corrupted by the racist "Tom Shows" in the south from the 19th and 20th century that painted Uncle Tom as a weak, pathetic man who betrayed his people, when really, he was a 20-something year old man in peak physical condition who chose to die rather than selling out the people he tried to help.
The article explains it pretty well. If you want to understand it better, watch the first video, then skip 20 videos, repeat, and you'll see the development over time as it morphs into what it's become now (I.E: watch episode 1, 21, 41, 61). I also dismissed it at first, but as the article points out, there's a lot more to it than it looks.
You do realize all of those things initially happened before Jan 6th, 2021, when DJT was president? This is the pot calling the kettle black here. As for the free speech chilling, the current administration has targeted people who talk ill of the president, which is a much more direct and egregious chilling effect on speech than what happened during the lockdown. Biden's admin did no such thing. Platforms may have taken down alleged "misinformation" (which they are also doing for the current admin, too!), but the Biden admin didn't target anyone who talked ill of him or his admin. If you have counter examples, feel free to provide them.
I said nothing about trump. Both parties are guilty of huge abuse. Biden did not fixed it when he got in office. Stop picking sides and see it isn't binary and both parties are rotten.
Look at the grandparent comment to what I replied to. I'm not picking sides, they did.
I agree, both parties are rotten, but in a thread pointing out the left abused power where the right did not, you need to swing the opposite way to end up there.
Tens of thousands of riders in what time period? Please, look up how many people it is capable of moving per hour, and compare that to any light rail or street car service in any city. There is no way the loop makes sense to build.
> Please, look up how many people it is capable of moving per hour, and compare that to any light rail or street car service in any city.
I have a hard time understanding this criticism. Why not do both?
It seems to me like underground highways make sense as an alternative to above ground highways in urban areas, not that they're an alternative to rail. There's lots of cities with excellent public transport that also make use of underground car travel (Melbourne for e.g.). If a company can figure out how to (safely) make underground highways more quickly and more affordably, it seems like that means we may need to do above-ground roads less frequently -- why would that not be a good thing?
Further, obviously Musk has a PR angle in facilitating tesla traffic here as the test bed in early days, but I don't see any reason that this couldn't be repurposed to rail use at scale.
In urban areas, they're usually an alternative. If you're going past the city, you could build a ground level highway around the city for a lot cheaper. If you're going into the city, it makes more economic sense to leave your car at the periphery of the city and take a rail system in because of the difference in throughput per $ spent building it (as well as the space occupied by parking for people who need to leave their cars in the city). Plus the people leaving the highway will get onto surface streets, and back up the highway.
Being able to make underground tunnels cheaper and faster is cool. Using them for cars is mostly a boondoggle with clearly superior alternatives.
I think that's reasonable. I suppose I also think it idealist that cities will actually act that way in practice in the short term. I'm specifically thinking of examples like the Corniche highway in Alexandria or Marine drive in Mumbai which shows cities are willing to give up gorgeous public space throughout incredibly dense areas to support car traffic. But there's also examples like Boston's "big dig" which shows cities are willing to spend extra to move those auto pathways underground. At least in the short term it seems that 1) cities aren't giving up entirely on cars, but 2) are willing to pay more to have them underground.
I suspect in practice the actual approach is going to be a mix of all of the above. So my reasoning is primarily that if all cities won't give up cars anyway, it seems objectively better to make it easier to at least move more of them underground. I suppose one case where I would change my mind is if there was evidence that more affordable underground roads reduced the investment in public transit.
> I suppose one case where I would change my mind is if there was evidence that more affordable underground roads reduced the investment in public transit.
It's Friday night so I lack the motivation to go on a stats-finding expedition, but anecdotally this seems like a circular issue to me. Public transportation sucks, so no one wants to fund it and we invest money into car infrastructure. Traffic gets worse, but public transportation is still bad because we haven't improved it, so we dump more money into car infrastructure, and etc.
I do hear you about the practical realities, though. Most people will drive if they can, because it is more convenient (so long as we can keep building more roads, even at exorbitant prices).
I think there would be far less support if people could see what they're actually spending on car infrastructure. At least in the US, it's currently so fractured it's hard to get an idea. Registration fees, gas taxes, federal taxes that get pumped into highway maintenance, etc. There's no clear "we spend $X on car infrastructure, and we could have really good public transportation for $Y".
That is the peak spontaneous ridership per hour. So about 22 people per minute. Probably measured during a convention or something. Most of the time it's probably half of that.
So essentially they made a ride comparable to Space Mountain that takes about 2200 passengers per hour.
The lens through which you're analyzing the phrase is coloring how you see it negatively, and the one I'm using is doing the opposite. There is no need to change the phrase, just how it's viewed, I think.