- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113485559637864463
La soluzione al #traffico era già nota nel 1927
In un manifesto dell’azienda di trasporto di Wichita Falls, si chiede di dare priorità al trasporto di massa, perché molto più efficiente: in un #tram possono sedersi comodamente le persone portate da ben 28 #auto (con 2 persone per auto, stima ottimistica).
100 anni fa era già tutto li: problema e soluzione
@energia #mezziPubblici #mobilitaSostenibile
Trovata qui:
https://www.facebook.com/100033858551663/posts/1365019054636700/
How do you interpret “averages 1 3-5 passengers”?
It’s country of the freedom, so it’s weird.
My interpretation: 1 3/5 = 1.6
I’d advise against using the phrase ‘3/5ths of a person’, but I guess you can always count on Americans (and Texans in particular) to make stupid decisions.
Going by that interpretation, 1 + 3/5, all the cars are Driving Miss Daisy.
That is obviously a bad comparison, because there’s no way that old hag would ever set foot on a tram.
3 to 5 on average
I think it’s a speech thing that got written down, but then also written as the number instead of the word.
Like they use of the word “one” like this:
That’s one weird thing to do.
That’s a weird thing to do.
So I read that as:
averages 3-5 passengers
averages a 3-5 passengers
averages one 3-5 passengers
averages 1 3-5 passengers
It seems odd that the average would be a range… Or that the range would include 5! I think 1 3/5 = 8/5 is more likely. Especially since they go on to assume 2 passengers, which would be pretty disengenuous if the average was higher than 2.
I can totally follow that logic. 1 and 3/5ths, rounding up to 2 for the next hypothesis. Very plausible explanation.