This fun city nerd video is somewhat relevant: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsbkvsyN-O8 Cities where the lowest percent of median income goes to median (housing + transportation). The winners were Seattle and San Francisco. This suggests that salaries may be able to compensate for increased housing costs. Of course, a longitudinal study would be necessary to answer this question.

I prefer Micromamba since it’s faster at solving environments.

There is no binary except that which your projection of that as the reality reifies.

Less than a month before election day, we have enough data to know that either Trump or Harris will win. Voting for someone is not an endorsement or showing support for them. A vote ought to be a strategic action, optimizing for outcomes you would like to see.

For me, this means voting for Jill Stein, because I live in Oregon. But if I lived in Michigan, I would vote for Harris with a clear conscious. If you live in a battle ground state, voting is too important to be used as an expression of values.

actual evidence

The reason why I think Harris is better is mostly that the people commiting the genocide prefer Republicans. You can also look at differences in their rhetoric.

But I disagree that you need reasonable evidence of a meaningful difference. If you have a binary chose in a situation like this, you ought to pick the one that you believe to be better, no matter how unsure you are.

If you got dragged in front of a war crimes tribunal for participating in a genocide, a hypothetical argument that someone else would have done even worse wouldn’t actually excuse you, same as it wouldn’t for any other crime.

This analogy does not work because someone participating in a genocide does not just have a binary option. If they refuse to act, the genocide will slow down. This is not true of an American voter. Refusing to engage in the binary chose only helps the worse of 2 evils.

Your argument basically sets up a justification for voting for any evil- kill LGBTQ people, kill Socialists, kill disabled people, etc- so long as you can argue that someone else would have been worse.

I disagree. The argument needs to be that voting for anyone else would have been worse.

If course, all of these arguments only apply to voters in one of the 12 battleground states. Other voters do not decide who is elected, so they ought to vote 3rd party to attempt to change the policies of one of the major parties.

we can’t really pretend we give a shit about genocide and then vote Democrat or Republican

In plurality voting, those who are interested in decreasing the severity of genocide ought to vote for the candidate less likely to make the genocide worse.

In the US, it’s pretty clear which candidate is more aligned with the current genocidal Israeli regime.

Places without off-street parking mandates still usually have on-street and even off-street parking

The problem comes when people who insist on living away from civilization demand the perks of civilization by being able to drive to a city and park their cars for free.

This becomes very expensive, and degrades the quality of life of those who live in the City.

That puts you at an extreme, where there are not many like you. So I don’t care if you have a gas car. But you should not stand in the way for most people to live more ethicaly, without a car. Support dense cities so there are plenty of pristine caves for hermits to live in.

In America, it’s 5:1 urban to rural. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html

And the threshold for rural is 500 people per square mile. So the 5 minutes to neighbor is at a rare extreme. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/acs/acsgeo-1.pdf

You can have nice land to work on in rural village. Being miles from your neighbor is not a sustainable way to live. And probably not healthy for a social animal like humans.

Transit between rural villages and the nearest city is possible and has been implemented in other countries

Very few people ought to be living that way. I think it’s fine for those people to use ICE cars. I also don’t care very much if the tractors use fossil fuels.

I see, my favorite podcast (“A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs”)[https://500songs.com/] has no ads. I’d strongly recommend if your interested in that kind of music

I don’t understand what you mean. I just skip the ads with my skip 30 seconds button.

George W Bush won the popular vote in 2004

Electric cars are bad for the environment since they require mineral mining and polute the city with micoplastics from tire dust. They are almost as bad as ICE cars.

Ebikes are the way to go.

If you’re doing it over an app, without the chance for the person you’re dumping to respond, I see no risk of things turning nasty

I’m not an expert, but have used a real time kernel for scientific research, using rtxi. My understanding is that the real time threads allows the computations to occur in a deterministic amount of time. This is necessary if you want to quickly respond to changes in personal membrane voltage with injections of current, and don’t want it to sometimes take longer to calculate how much current to inject.

I’m generally against the idea of planting as many trees as possible.

Trees are not very good carbon sinks because they decompose and burn. Also, there are also some ecological communities where adding trees makes the land a worse carbon sink.

Avoiding cutting down forests to build suburbs is something I can certainly get behind though.

Do you think anyone ought to go to prison?

If a person has harmed others, and is likely to do more harm in the future, it’s appropriate to remove them from society. This is why prisons exist.

Drivers licence suspension typically is the consequence of crimes that are too minor to warrant prison. In this case, the perpetrator has the chance to make changes to their life to avoid prison. For example, they can accept slow public transit, bike to work, get a closer job, move to a place where it’s easier to live without a car.

Obviously, It will be challenging for the perpetrator to reorganize their life in a way that does not require them to risk harming others, and many will fail.

But your argument that society is required to accept being victimized by dangerous drivers because it would be inhumane to force them to use alternative forms of transportation (used by millions of people too poor to afford a car, even in the most car dependent cities) is absurd.